OneMan-OneWoman.org

Census will strengthen GOP, weaken same-sex marriage movement for a decade

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:06:00 +0000

Earlier this fall I documented the effect the 2010 midterm elections will have on the overall movement to legalize same-sex marriage.

Our report based its conclusions on the notion that the Republican Party is poised to not only take control of the U.S. House of Representatives but also win majorities in many state legislatures across the Nation.

Real Clear Politics already projects that the number of House races in the “safe Republican”, “likely Republican” or “lean Republican” category is 223, five seats more than the GOP needs to take the gavel from Speaker Pelosi.

Most importantly, that 223 figure doesn’t take into account any of the 34 House seats considered to be toss-ups. The very idea of a toss-up means the GOP is likely to pick up at least half of them, which would bring them to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 seats. That would equate to a 23-seat majority.

Yet this is the last House of Representatives the American people will elect before state legislatures across the country, using data from the 2010 Census Report, redistribute representation based on population shifts over the past decade. And this is what is likely to give the GOP a sizable edge going into the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Based on the Electoral College results over the past four or five presidential elections, it is easy to divide most of the Nation up into blue states and red states. There are a handful of states that have no solidly blue or solidly red trend – which we call swing states. Going forward, these three distinctions will be necessary to keep in mind.

As you know, the amount of electoral votes a state has is determined by adding the number of representatives the state sends to Capitol Hill or – in other words, the number of representatives plus the number of senators. In this way, it is not constitutionally possible for a state to have less than three electoral votes as each state is entitled to two senators and at least one representative.

According to Election Data Services, there are six blue states that are likely to see changes in their congressional representation and thus, the number of electoral votes they may cast will also change.

With the exception of Washington, which is set to gain one seat in Congress, five other states are expected to lose seats. Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts are expected to lose one seat each while New York State is set to lose as many as two. This would amount to a net loss of 5 electoral votes for future democratic candidates for president, including Barack Obama in his re-election bid.

In of itself not that’s not too bad but what’s on the other side of that equation. Those states are losing representation in Congress due to population shifts. In short, people have moved away from the industrial cities of the Northeast. Where did they go? Surely they didn’t just disappear – and that’s the real killer for democrats.

Election Data Services is projecting that five red states are going to see a net gain of 6 votes in the Electoral College due to population shifts over the past decade. Texas, the state expected to see the largest gain, will grow from 34 to 38 electoral votes while South Carolina, Utah and Georgia are each likely to gain one. Meanwhile, Louisiana and Missouri are each predicted to lose one.

That’s a +11 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the GOP going into the next three presidential elections. To put it another way, it would be like the GOP picking off Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Democrats are going to have to find those 11 electoral votes somewhere. Unfortunately for them, they won’t find much help from those swing states. The traditional swing states of Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will see a net loss of 1 due to the 2010 Census Report.

Not only is that a +11 vote advantage for the GOP in the Electoral College but those new 11 votes exist because of the existence of new red-state-congressional-districts in the House of Representatives. That translates into an edge for the GOP in keeping control of the House after it's 2010 take-over. So, don't expect to see the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed.

And indeed we will see appointments to federal benches and the even to the Supreme Court in the next decade. For this reason, among others, the 2010 Census Report spells more trouble, beyond what I detailed in the aforementioned political report on the midterms, for those who support same-sex marriage.

Today's serving of the homosexual agenda (now eat it or we'll shove it down your throat)

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:31:00 +0000

This is one of the leading gay rights
organizations in America and has been
on the attack lately. When will they be
open about their real agenda?

Ask a homosexual activist what the homosexual agenda is all about and you'll receive some bumper sticker slogans or if you're lucky, perhaps some talking points carefully crafted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). You may even get a non-answer, which denies the existence of the homosexual agenda altogether. All in all, you'll get a fluffy, feel-good answer that in of itself paints benign the homosexual agenda.

One thing you're sure to hear is about how gays and lesbians just want to have a family, marry the person they are in love with and be with that person until death do them part. This is an example of one of those talking points, crafted in the image of what heterosexuals say about marriage, in order to portray homosexuals as no different.

I should be looking over my shoulder from now on - I just inferred that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals, a big no-no in the LGBT community. In fact what I said was completely accurate and any rational person would agree. Homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in that they prefer in engage in sexual activities with a person of the same sex. That is a fundamental difference.

That is not to say that homosexuals are any less human - or any less American. But to deny that fundamental difference is ridiculous. That fundamental difference in of itself does not necessarily warrant any different treatment of homosexuals, either.

Now I know that I am often critical of the homosexual lifestyle. There are aspects of that lifestyle that are indeed worthy of criticism which I don't seek to get fully into now. Furthermore, the people that make up the homosexual community are to blame for that which ought to be criticized. Promiscuity, for example, is a controllable behavior which remains largely uncontrolled within the homosexual community.

It is this promiscuity that is largely to blame for the higher-than-average, growing number of gay men who are HIV-positive. Many heterosexuals are also promiscuous but heterosexual promiscuity doesn't spread one of the world's most deadly deceases in the same way. A recent report from the Centers for Decease Control documented that 1-in-5 gay men were HIV positive.

The promiscuity doesn't stop when gays and lesbians are provided with access to marriage, either. You'll often hear a talking-point rebuttal to criticism of homosexual promiscuity that suggests if gays and lesbians had the opportunity to marry each other, they would be more monogamous. A January 2010 headline printed in the New York Times reads: "Many Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret" and the article goes on to explain that secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.

One thing you're certain not to hear from the homosexual activist is anything about how his (or her) agenda, if they haven't already denied the existence of it, will impact your life. They will outright deny the notion that their agenda is about forcing people to do what they don't want to do.

They make light of it. "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one," is one of the bumper sticker slogans they'll throw at you. In reality, though, and history has shown us, the homosexual agenda is all about a radical and forced change of society that reaches far beyond 'marriage equality'.

After all, there will never be marriage equality without full acceptance of homosexuality. A married couple that is comprised of two people of the same-sex will always busy the back of most people's minds and words will be left unsaid merely out of courtesy and respect.

It's like what Juan Williams said about Muslims on an airplane. He's not a racist or a bigot or a right wing conservative but, as he admitted, when he sees a Muslim dressed in Muslim clothing on an airplane, it catches his eye, it makes him nervous.

The same thing is true of same-sex marriage. People will 'accept' them much like passengers will accept Muslim passengers on an airplane but no one knows what thoughts are brewing in their minds, behind their smile.

It is because of this cultural disapproval of homosexuality that the true homosexual agenda lies in making homosexuality as mainstream as possible and 'normal' in everyone's eyes. Those who stand against that will be forced against their will to accept it anyway and we can see this happening across the Nation.

Photo: INDYCHANNEL.COM

Take Indiana for example. A privately-owned, family-run Indiana cookie shop called "Just Cookies" refused to fill the order of a gay rights group which wanted rainbow-themed cupcakes made for a National Coming Out Day celebration.

The shop's owners, in part because their shop focuses primarily on baking cookies and in part because they do not support the homosexual agenda, faced a backlash from the LGBT community that led to picketing of the cookie shop and threats of eviction from the City Market on grounds of discrimination. The owners of the cookie shop had this to say:

"As citizens and owners of a small business, we pray that our country remains a free Democratic society and these rights are never taken away by anyone who seeks to unlawfully impose their will or agenda on others."

Take New Hampshire for another example. New Hampshire's largest newspaper, the Union Leader of Manchester, is under fire for refusing to print a same-sex marriage announcement as it goes against the beliefs of the newspaper that marriage "is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women." The Union-Leader, like Just Cookies in Indianapolis, is a private company.

In so much that The Union-Leader is a private newspaper, it is also well-known to be a conservative paper. Yet in the eyes of homosexual activists, that doesn't matter and when a company, be it a privately-owned and politically conservative organization, refuses to support their agenda it amounts to discrimination and bigotry.

These two examples are just within the last month and amount to a very small part of the tip of the forced-homosexual-agenda iceberg. Do you remember Gavin Newsom, the San Fransisco Mayor and homosexual activist? He said same-sex marriage was coming to California "whether you like it or not."

And indeed it would behooves us to remember indoctrination of homosexuality in public schools by teaching young school kids that same-sex relationships are no different from heterosexual ones. And do we really want to become a society like our neighbors in Canada or in the United Kingdom where the protection of homosexuals has infringed on the basic principles of free speech?

Don't think it could happen in America? It already has happened.

An upcoming comedy film starring Vince Vaughn has grabbed headlines recently over its removal of a scene that included a gay joke. The scene in question includes a line by Vaughn that goes "Electric cars are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay."

Clearly comedy - but not for homosexuals who have been working on normalizing homosexuality but have only been successful in creating an atmosphere where people have to be careful of what they say for they may offend a homosexual.

Vaughn, appropriately, defends the usage of the joke.

ActRight offers conservatives a headquarters for competitive activism online

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:24:00 +0000

A new website is up and running that offers conservatives a central hub for online activism that will hopefully grow in strength to counter a liberal activism site funded primarily by George Soros.

ActRight offers a new kind of platform for online activism with an added competitive touch. Upon signing up and creating an account, which is quick and easy to do, you can donate to various conservative organizations from the National Organization for Marriage to the Susan B. Anthony List to the Heritage Foundation.

If donating to organizations is not your thing - or not enough, you can search for political candidates by name or state and donate directly to to them. Each candidate has their own page with embeddable widgets for your blog or website which come in a variety of sizes. The largest embeddable widget even includes a graphic detailing how much has been donated.

If you can't afford to donate anymore right now or this year, there's plenty of other ways the conservative activist in you can take action. You can search for and sign petitions - or if you can't find the petition you're looking for - you can create your own and then promote your new petition with easy share options for Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and beyond. I've embedded an example petition to get you started right away.

I mentioned competition. Yes, the site automatically tracks your activism - what you've done and the actions you've taken with the causes, candidates or petitions that you support and gives you points based on how much of an impact you have made. Based on these points, a leader board of the top activists gives credit where credit is due.

There's much more that could be said about this new site, which claims to be the online clearinghouse for conservative action. I don't want to give away all the site has to offer, it's best if you go take a look, create a profile and explore the site yourself.

That's where I'm headed right now.

Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:42:00 +0000

An article published by BBC Earth News today cites the first scientific study that looks into the homosexual tendencies of penguins and concluded that some penguins merely "flirt" with homosexuality.

The occurrence of homosexuality, the scientists conclude, is the result of a high male population or higher-than-normal levels of testosterone. What's more - the scientists claim the homosexual pairs formed between the penguins are not long lasting - something interestingly similar to homosexual pairs formed between human beings.

One of the researchers, Professor Dobson explained:

So these [homosexual] pairs can bond. But, bonded pairs can split up if one finds a more preferred partner.

That's interesting because nobody refutes that people involved in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most promiscuous people in the world. For example, gay author Gabriel Rotello wrote:

"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity...I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."

If only penguins could speak.

Homosexual activists often take the position that, because homosexuality occurs in nature that homosexuality is natural part of life. They use this as a talking point in the effort to mainstream their deviant sexual lifestyle which they are working to force upon an unwilling society. They, not me, compare gay and lesbian human beings to members of the animal kingdom.

I use their own comparison to demonstrate that, as the study demonstrated, the homosexuality members of the LGBT community compare themselves to is short-lived, has nothing to do with family and most importantly, the homosexual pairs were observed later on paired with a member of the opposite sex raising eggs in the breeding colony.

The bottom line is that the 'gay' penguin pairs do not stay together and in fact, return to a heterosexual lifestyle centered upon breeding and raising the next generation of penguins.

The LGBT community was so excited to see two 'gay' penguins hatch and raise a baby penguin back in 2005. We shall see their reaction to this scientific study. My guess is that the LGBT community will throw the penguins under the bus. It's won't be pretty.

So what's the point? The point is that gay and lesbians ought to be free to live the sexual lifestyle of their preference. They ought not to be treated differently because of their preferences. But when it comes to redefining marriage for the entire society, that's another matter.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with family and child-rearing, something at the very core of marriage. A piece of advice for the homosexual community: Stop comparing yourselves to animals. It is precisely the ability of human beings to understand the difference between right and wrong, paired with our conscience, which makes us unique from the members of the greater animal kingdom.

Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:59:00 +0000

One aspect of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps strategy would be a better word to use, is to mainstream homosexuality in our society as the debate over gay adoption and same-sex marriage continues across the Nation.

That is why over the course of the past few years we have seen reports published that, for example, claim that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexual parents. Of course, this particular study has been discredited and earlier this year we explained how the entire study was a propaganda tool of the homosexual agenda.

The study I'd like to draw attention to has been printed for the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science and a summary of the article can be found at the end of this article.

Most interestingly, the study confirmed that:

Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%...

This is interesting as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts the percentage of homosexuals in this country at somewhere between 3% and 8%. That represents a stark difference between the numbers presented by the study.

If 8% of the country as a whole are homosexuals and upwards of 16% of homosexuals' children are themselves gay or lesbians, it goes a long way to support the idea that homosexuality is, at least in part, a learned behavior - something the American Psychological Association (APA) would not refute, although they are highly supportive of homosexuality.

Last year the APA quietly came out admitting that there was no evidence of a 'gay gene', reversing a stance they held on the issue for over a decade and were only able to confirmed that many factors are at play when it comes to the determination of one's sexual orientation.

So what does this mean? Well, if the findings of the study are accurate and we as a Nation continue to impose social experiments on the family by way of gay adoption and same-sex marriage, it will equate into a larger population of homosexuals. Is that necessarily in of itself a bad thing? No, of course not.

On the other hand, homosexual activists are adamant that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and allowing gay couples to adopt children will not have any adverse consequences. Quite the opposite taking into consideration the findings of this study.

What it means is quite possibility that within a few generations of full-fledged gay adoption and same-sex marriage, the number of Americans engaging in homosexual activity will reach a point of affecting population growth and will, short of a medical breakthrough, lead to a dramatic spread of the HIV virus.

Dramatic conclusion you may think.

Firstly, I do not intend to say that homosexual activity will ever grow to such a level that would kill off the species. So immediately I would clarify that I do not see an extinction of the human race at stake here.

However, it is valid to mention given the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court had this to say about the role of marriage in it's 2006 ruling in Andersen v. King County:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.

Secondly, considering recent reports that 1-out-of-5 gay men are HIV-positive, it is quite fair to say that if the population of gay men increases, so will spread the HIV virus. The Center for Disease Control had this to say about gay men and HIV:

Gay and bisexual men of all races account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.

It's understandable that same-sex couples would like to adopt children. But let's keep adoption focused on what's best for the children. After all, adoption is about giving children the parents they need not giving parents the children they want.

For same-sex couples, adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of children but about fulfilling their objective to mimic the institution of the family which ideally consists of a mother and father who are married, and the child or children they conceive.

Now, the study I have been referring to is provided below. It was put together by Walter Schumm of Kansas State University who received his B.S. in Physics from The College of William and Mary in 1972, his M.S. in Family and Child Development from Kansas State University in 1976 before earning his Ph.D in Family Studies from Purdue University in 1979.

Yes it is connected to Dr. Paul Cameron, a researcher highly disliked by the homosexual community for his work, but according to an AOL News article, it was this very same Dr. Paul Cameron who first wrote about the negative effects of secondhand smoke so in my book he's got some credibility.

CHILDREN OF HOMOSEXUALS MORE APT TO BE HOMOSEXUALS? A REPLY TO MORRISON AND TO CAMERON BASED ON AN EXAMINATION OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA

WALTER R. SCHUMM (2010).

Journal of Biosocial Science, Volume 42,
Issue 06, November 2010 pp 721-742

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=7907017

Case before Supreme Court may offer preview of what is to become of Proposition 8

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:12:00 +0000

The City Council of the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage last December. Ever since, a coalition of social conservatives and religious groups have been working to bring the issue before the voters to decide, citing a provision of the City Charter which grants citizens of the District the right to hold a referendum on anything except "laws appropriating funds." Over the past year the effort has faced setbacks in both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

Bishop Harry Jackson of the Hope Christian Church
and leader of StandForMarriageDC, who I had an
opportunity to meet and work with twice during the
2010 Summer for Marriage Tour in Annapolis and D.C.

First, the coalition, which goes by the name "StandForMarriageDC", and is led by Bishop Harry Jackson, sued the District after the D.C. Board of Elections refused to grant them permission to hold a referendum to define marriage.

According to the Board of Elections, such referendum would have violated the city's Human Rights Act.

In January, 2010 the D.C Superior Court agreed with the Board of Elections and upheld their decision.

Congress had refused to intervene on the matter during their 30-day congressional review period, which they have over the city's affairs. Congress even has the ability to bypass the local city government altogether to pass legislation of their own. As a result, the same-sex marriage law went into effect on March 3, 2010.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts said Bishop Jackson's argument "has some force", he opted not to issue an emergency stay which would have put same-sex marriage on hold, at least temporarily. A full version of Justice Robert's decision can be read here.

Utah Senator Bob Bennett, facing a tough primary challenge from Tea Party favorite Mike Lee, tried in March to add an amendment to the health care reform legislation that would have prohibited the city from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex partners until the voters had a chance to weigh in on the matter. The Democrats were ultimately able to kill that amendment.

The next setback came in July right as the National Organization for Marriage was kicking off its 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour. StandForMarriageDC had appealed the January ruling from the D.C. Superior Court to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where in a 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed that a referendum on the definition of marriage would violate the city's Human Rights Act.

Since then we've seen Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Fransisco. We've seen part of the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Boston. We also saw a very powerful rally in front of the U.S. Capital to wrap up the Summer for Marriage Tour.

In the video below, you can see Bishop Harry Jackson leading the people in a rally chant of "Let the people vote, Let the people vote, Let the people vote".

There is no question that this issue is headed to the Supreme Court and most likely to be heard is the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case out of San Fransisco, which on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and set to kick-off in December. Much of the debate, however, centers on how the Supreme Court will rule in Perry.

On both sides people agree that four justices will affirm the right of same-sex marriage (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer) while four will almost certainly affirm traditional marriage (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) as something worthy of preserving and something the government has a legitimate state interest in regulating. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.

The only debate lies in which way Kennedy will vote. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a historically significant Supreme Court case that ultimately struck down anti-sodomy laws in various states across the Nation.

However, in his opinion, Kennedy did not offer too much insight into how his legal mind reacts to the notion of governmental recognition of same-sex relationships. He wrote:

The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

In this Kennedy affirms the right of homosexual and heterosexuals alike to engage in sexual activities, which he calls "the most private human conduct" as they please. But he glosses over the issue of relationship recognition which was not at issue in this case.

There is part of his opinion, however, which is particularly interesting given the discourse on the topic of homosexuality in today's society. It also brings more light into which way Kennedy may swing in the Perry case. He continued:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.

The last clause of that sentence is what is interesting. Kennedy points out that, while the State (or a court) ought not to regulate the boundaries of a relationship, he implies that such regulation is possible or even perhaps necessary, when a person is injured or more importantly, an institution the law protects is injured.

Marriage being in many ways an extension - or expansion of the boundaries of a relationship, it could be argued that the institution of marriage is one of those institutions protected by the law that may be "injured" as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

At the very least, Kennedy acknowledged that circumstances may exist when it maybe necessary to define the boundaries of a relationship and that is critical as we move forward. This is particularly critical given Justice Kennedy's comments on the homosexual relationship in general:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

First off, Kennedy wrote here that entering into a homosexual relationship is a choice. Secondly, he acknowledged that a private relationship between two people of the same sex taking place within the confines of their own homes is enough for one to "retain their dignity as a free person".

This is important as marriage is a public contract, not private, and homosexual activists claim the denial of marriage to same-sex couples is demeaning to their dignity and makes them second-class citizens.

It appears, unless Justice Kennedy has changed his mind, that the decriminalization of homosexuality so that to enter into an intimate homosexual relationship at your heart's desire ought to be enough for one to retain one's dignity as a free person.

Still, having taken all this into account, forecasting the Supreme Court's potential ruling in Perry is not entirely possible. After all, although most proponents of same-sex marriage count Justice Elena Kagan as safely in their corner, it was she don't forget, who said there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution during her confirmation hearings. She is likely to vote for same-sex marriage but that is something to keep in mind.

So quite possibly one of the best forecasters we can use to "judge the judges" on this matter surrounds a petition, Jackson v. D.C., filed by StandForMarriageDC to the Supreme Court to appeal the negative ruling they received from the DC Court of Appeals in July.

If the Court agrees to hear the case, they will be hearing a case very similar to but substantially different from the Perry case. The two cases are similar in that they surround the issue of the right of citizens to vote on the definition of marriage via ballot initiative or referendum.

They are substantially different in that the Perry case will tackle the issue of a ballot initiative approved by the voters and then struck down while the petition from StandForMarriageDC will ask the Court to affirm the right of DC's citizens to vote in the first place.

Even a narrow ruling in this case out of DC, (if the Court agrees to hear it) would shed light onto the prospects of the Perry case. It is difficult to see the Supreme Court affirming the right of DC's citizens to vote on the definition of marriage, although many contend it violates the city's Human Rights Act, and then turn around and deny the right of Californians to do essentially the same thing.

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case and thus won't issue a ruling and we'll be left in the dark to merely speculate how Justice Kennedy's legal mind has evolved, if at all, over the past 7 years since Lawrence v. Texas.

Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:23:00 +0000

A video has been uploaded to YouTube in late September is finally being given the media attention it deserves.

Fox News has shined some light on it. Of course you couldn't expect MSNBC or CNN to cover something that would portray their fellow liberals negatively.Here's the Fox News article.

According to that video, made by Derek Broes on September 29th prior to a Boxer - Fiorina debate, two day laborers are holding a sign critical of Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina.

Here's the catch: the sign was made by the Boxer campaign and the two laborers, one of which claims that he can't speak English, say they were promised to be paid by the Boxer campaign for their "services". If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth ten times that.

This is borderline exploitation. Here the Boxer campaign is offering money to those who would do anything to earn a dollar and who are likely in the U.S. illegally to hold a sign they can't get anyone else to hold. Is that a sign of how few supporters Barbara Boxer has in her camp?

This reminds me of an article I came across earlier this month about a casting call for people to attend a Barack Obama event in Washington, D.C on October 13. At least that's a step up from enlisting (and paying) day laborers to support you.

The worst part about it is that at least one of them doesn't even understand the content written on the sign he is holding, as he claims to not speak English. It is fair to assume that the ability to say one can't speak English doesn't demonstrate one's knowledge of English beyond that. I don't know Spanish beyond counting 1-10 but I can, if I needed to, say "No hablo Español".

Here's a key of advice, Barb. Maybe if your signs were more truthful, you wouldn't have trouble finding some of the constituents you represent and want to vote for you to hold them - and you wouldn't have to pay illegal immigrant day laborers.

Does Wisconsin's domestic partnerships law violate the state's constitution?

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:57:00 +0000

In 2009 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to the state’s domestic partnership law enacted three years after over nearly 2/3rds of Wisconsinites passed Referendum 1, which reads as follows:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-family, traditional marriage group with whom I worked with during the National Organization for Marriage’s Summer for Marriage Tour stop in Madison, WI this summer challenged the legality of the domestic partnership registry as in their opinion; it was substantially similar to that of marriage.

Wisconsin banned same-sex marriage
in 2006 with Referendum 1.

Today the same pro-family group is putting forth a second challenge to the registry for same-sex couples on the same grounds: The domestic partnership registry is too similar to marriage and violates the state law created by passage of Referendum 1.

This time the challenge comes only months after the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold the constitutionality of that very referendum, which was challenged by a political science professor on a technicality that it violated the state’s laws on referendums by posing two questions in one referendum.

So the question is whether or not Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership law is substantially similar to marriage or not and so I’d like to put forth the information to compare the two and let you decide.

Besides the fact that the applications for a marriage licenses and the application for domestic partnerships are both obtained from the County Clerk, the similarities between the two don’t stop at that.

Wisconsin state statute 765.01 states that “Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.”

In the declaration of policy for the state’s domestic partnership law, the state states the following:

The legislature finds that it is in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters for a legal status of domestic partnership.

So what’s the difference between the two? The marriage law seems to specify husband and wife but besides that the two civil contracts create a “legal status” between two people. I’m quite sure that when the Wisconsin State Legislature drafted its first marriage laws, it found that it was “in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters” of such legal status, too.

Moving along. Wisconsin state statute 765.02(1) states that “Every person who has attained the age of 18 years may marry if otherwise competent.”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership has a similar requirement. Two individuals may form a domestic partnership if they satisfy all of the following criteria:

(1) Each individual is at least 18 years old and capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

So in marriage and domestic partnerships, both parties have to be at least 18 years of age. The law stipulates that both parties are “competent” for marriage and “capable of consenting” for domestic partnerships. No big differences there. Note: The above only shows one of the criteria for a domestic partnership; I’ll go through the rest now.

Next we move on to other issues of eligibility. For example, the issue of whether or not either of the aspiring marriage applicants are currently married – or if the person they want to marry is a close-blood relative.

Well, as you would expect, Wisconsin state statute 765.03 states that “No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins…”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law has similar wordage:

(2) Neither individual is married to, or in a domestic partnership with, another individual.

(4) The 2 individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than 2nd cousins, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

Above criteria 2 and 4 are mirror images of Wisconsin’s marriage law, going so far as to bring in the specificity about one’s second cousin. Look at the fourth criteria closely. It is almost as though they copy and pasted the marriage law. They both have the awkwardly sounding “nearer of kin than…” in reference to the second cousins.

Criteria three of the eligibility requirements for entering into a domestic partnership at first appeared to be a difference between the two. But honestly speaking, a criterion that you live together (literally “share a common residence” in the partnership law) goes without saying for marriage. I mean, it’s what married couples do. They live together. They have families. So there’s no difference there, either.

Criterion number five of the domestic partnership law is where a significant difference between marriage and domestic partnership sticks out like a car with five wheels. Criterion number five requires that both parties applying for a domestic partnership be of the same sex.

What? The first thing I thought was what about heterosexuals? How can, on one hand, the LGBT community be campaigning across the country against marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples but on the other hand support this domestic partnership law with excludes opposite sex couples?

It doesn’t matter that marriage may be ‘better’. Quite surely it is, to some. But shouldn’t opposite sex couples have the right to enter into a domestic partnership with their partner? What if they don’t like marriage? What if they were married once, got divorced and swore they’d never get married again, only to find and fall in love with someone else down the road?

I’ll have to revisit this issue later on. For now I want to continue comparing (there’s really not much contrasting going on, if you’ve noticed) marriage and Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law.

Wisconsin state statute 765.08(1) states that: “Except as provided in sub. (2), no marriage license may be issued within 5 days of application for the marriage license.”

That’s funny because I read that same thing in the domestic partnership law.

Except as provided in subd. 2., the county clerk may not issue a declaration of domestic partnership until at least 5 days after receiving the application for the declaration of domestic partnership.

Guess what? Subsection 2 is also very similar between the two laws.

Subsection 2 for the marriage law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a marriage license within less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $25 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Subsection 2 for the domestic partnership law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a declaration of domestic partnership less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $10 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Now that’s as word-for-word as it gets, folks. Oh, minus the extra fifteen dollars a couple seeking to get married must pay for expedited services. Please don’t tell me the difference between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin lay in that little difference.

Wisconsin state statute 765.09(2) reads: “No marriage license may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed by the parties intending to intermarry, contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number and is filed with the clerk who issues the marriage license.”

Would it surprise you to find out that the domestic partnership law is a mirror image of that, too? I would hope that by this time, it would not be a surprise.

No declaration of domestic partnership may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed to by the parties intending to form the domestic partnership; it contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number; and it is filed with the clerk who issues the declaration of domestic partnership.

This is getting quite redundant, due to the fact that marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are one in the same, so I’m going to pick up the pace a little. I’m going to lay out the facts and then the game will be to see if at the end of this article, you can, with a straight face, say that marriage and domestic partnerships in Wisconsin are “substantially different” as the law requires.

The marriage and domestic partnership laws both require that both parties “shall present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification and residence and shall swear to or affirm the application before the clerk who is to issue [it]. This is from Wisconsin state statute 765.09(3a).

Both the marriage and domestic partnership laws require that the respective application “shall contain the social security number of each party, as well as any other informational items,” that some government office may require. This is from the same Wisconsin state statute above.

That state statute goes on to finish “The portion of the marriage application form that is collected for statistical purposes only shall indicate that the address of the marriage license applicant may be provided by a county clerk to a law enforcement officer under the conditions specified under s. 765.20 (2).” And of course, word-for-word, with the replacement of “marriage license” with “application [for a domestic partnership]”, the domestic partnership law says the same thing. Word for word.

According to both marriage law and the domestic partnership law, both couples “must submit a certified copy of their birth certificate” but the law provides an out for both couples if a certified copy of their birth certificate is “unobtainable”. In such a case, both the couple applying for a marriage license and a couple applying for a domestic partnership may submit “other satisfactory documentary proof” of the requisite facts.

And what if the county clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof provided? Well in that case, law stipulates that for both marriage and domestic partnership applications, the following: “Whenever the clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof presented, he or she shall submit the presented proof to a judge of a court of record in the county of application for an opinion as to its sufficiency.”

So far the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are the fact that 1) marriage is between a male and female and a domestic partnership is between two people of the same sex and 2) a more expensive fee for expedited services if you want to get married. Substantially different or substantially the same?

Not only are the fees to obtain a marriage license and to enter into a domestic partnership, but the way in which the money must be used by the County are identical for marriage applicants and domestic partnership applicants. Well, the domestic partnership law actually says it best:

770.17 Fees to county clerk. Each county clerk shall receive as a fee for each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued the same amount that the clerk receives for issuing a marriage license under s. 765.15. Of the amount that the clerk receives under this section, the clerk shall pay into the state treasury the same amount that the clerk pays into the state treasury from the fee collected for issuing a marriage license. The remainder shall become a part of the funds of the county. For each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued, the clerk shall also receive a standard notary fee in the same amount that the clerk receives as a standard notary fee in connection with issuing a marriage license and that may be retained by the clerk if the clerk is operating on a fee or part−fee basis but which otherwise shall become part of the funds of the county.

Information about the state’s domestic partnership law used in this article was obtained here.

Moving beyond the basically identical procedures of obtaining a marriage license and entering into a domestic partnership, it is necessary to go into differences in what benefits are available to domestic partnership couples versus married couples.

Bill 75 from the 2009 Wisconsin General Assembly contains a table of contents on page 6 that outlines the benefits granted to same-sex couples who enter into domestic partnerships.

These benefits include, but are not limited to, victim notification by the Department of Corrections, ownership of property and joint tenancy, health care, power of attorney, consent to autopsies, family and medical leave, and death benefits, among others. The full list can be seen here.

Most importantly, the list of benefits granted to couples in domestic partnerships is categorized by the authors of that very bill as “fairly extensive”. Altogether there are 27 areas of benefits granted.

The authors then go onto point out that there are some areas of family-relationship rights the domestic partnership law does not include. That list is on page 7 of the same Bill 75 and contains 22 areas of benefits not granted.

Altogether there are some 49 areas, or categories of benefits granted to married couples. Couples registered as domestic partnerships have access to 27, or 55% of them. But that is not actually really fair.

After all, two of the areas of “benefits” of family-relationship rights not afforded under the domestic partnership law are under the categories “marriage procedures” and “divorce”. That means same-sex couples have access to 57% of those benefit coverage areas.

Upon stating it’s opinion that the domestic partnership law was not “substantially similar” to marriage, the Legislative Council Staff, charged with the task of assessing whether or not the state’s domestic partnership law was or wasn’t “substantially similar”, the Council had this to say:

However, as noted previously, it cannot be concluded with certainty that a court would draw the same conclusions about the intent of art. XIII, s. 13 or the application of that provision to the domestic partnership proposal. Some uncertainty is inherent in attempting to determine how a court will interpret a constitutional amendment.

So you make the decision. Wisconsin’s same-sex domestic partnership law not only has almost identical procedures and eligibility requirements, but the legal status established through a domestic partnership offers nearly 6-out-of-10 of the benefits afforded to married couples and the domestic partnership status also affects how the couple can file taxes, just like it affects married couples.

The only differences between them, as I pointed out earlier, seem to be a difference in the cost of expedited services, the fact that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex partners and partnerships are restricted to same-sex partners.

Beyond that, registered same-sex couples have a greatly easier ability to terminate their domestic partnership whereas married couples must go through an official divorce. I would content that is a difference not in legal status between domestic partners and married couples but in the termination of said legal status.

Wisconsin Family Action is leading
the fight to protect the integrity of
marriage in the State of Wisconsin.

The new lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Family Action claims that the rights afforded to registered same-sex couples and the procedure for entering into a domestic partnership are too similar to marriage and gay rights groups in Wisconsin have come to the defense of their domestic partnership law.

We laid out our opposition to any form of same-sex relationship recognition in September.

Fighting for same-sex ‘marriage’ through the courts: Short-term gains, long-term failure?

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:35:00 +0000

LOSS AFTER LOSS

I’ve been considering the notion that LGBT activists may be their own worst enemies when it comes to the legalization of same-sex marriage in America although they will adamantly claim that title belongs to people such as myself.

It is universally accepted that the gay and lesbian community have faced unquestioned defeat at the ballot box over the past decade. Thirty-one states have put the issue of marriage to the voters and all thirty-one times the people voted to define marriage between a man and a woman.

TAKING IT TO THE COURTS

That is a pretty dismal record for same-sex marriage advocates. So dismal, in fact, that they have sought recourse from the will of the people by taking their case to the courts. Lawsuits have been filed over the past few years across this country from Massachusetts to Minnesota to California

Courtrooms like this have become the preferred battleground for gay activists
in the pursuit of the homosexual agenda.

Most popular among these cases is quite possibility the ongoing battle over California’s Proposition 8. In 2008, the voters of California responded to a ruling by the CA Supreme Court which legalized same-sex marriage by amending the state constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman.

Today, the constitutionality of that ballot initiative is in limbo after San Francisco-based Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on August 4^th that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional for a number of reasons.

The case is now on appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals and is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of whatever decision the Appellate Court issues.

In Minnesota, where the first-ever same-sex marriage lawsuit in the United States was filed back in the early 1970s, a group called “Marry Me Minnesota” filed a new lawsuit this year challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage again.

The original lawsuit obviously wasn’t successful and although it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Court dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question”. This case, Baker v. Nelson, has been the federal precedent on the matter of same-sex marriage for the past 38 years.

Pamela R. Winnick explained the precedential weight of such a dismissal in the Columbia Law Review in 1976 in her comments under The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda.

Gay rights groups in Minnesota are not happy about the lawsuit, fearing the conservative Minnesota Supreme Court could issue a ruling against the plaintiffs which would reaffirm the state’s 1972 precedent and set back the greater homosexual agenda for years to come.

In Massachusetts, a gay rights attorney was successful in her bid earlier this year to have part of the Defense of Marriage Act deemed unconstitutional by a Boston-based judge, again, for a number of reasons.

In Wisconsin, a political science professor sought to have the state’s 2006 voter-approved referendum banning same-sex marriage deemed unconstitutional on a technicality. The State Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the professor this summer and affirmed the constitutionality of the referendum approved by nearly two-thirds of Wisconsinites.

In Wyoming, reports came out in August that a gay couple was challenging the state’s law that defines marriage specifically as the union of “a male and a female person.”

The gay couple were representing themselves before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson in the case but suddenly dropped their lawsuit after gay rights groups in the state wouldn’t support them, claiming the lawsuit would, again, jeopardize the greater homosexual agenda.

Lawsuits are pending or active in other states across the Nation but the real question is whether or not the strategy of circumventing the voters through the courthouse is a good strategy or will it backfire?

OUTLOOK MOVING FORWARD: ARE THEIR LEGAL VICTORIES NUMBERED?

Make no mistake about it. Gay rights advocates have a much better success rate in the courts. Of the five states that have same-sex marriage today, three of them legalized same-sex marriage through judicial order.

This year alone, as mentioned earlier, Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were deemed, at least in part, unconstitutional. Seems like their strategy is working – if you’re near-sighted that is. But what about the long-term outlook where the stakes are higher?

Of all the legal victories the homosexual activists can be proud of over the past few years, they are but one legal defeat away from losing everything. Will all of their legal victories be trumped by one coming loss in the Supreme Court?

The Proposition 8 case will be appealed to the Supreme Court which is “the most conservative court since the 1930s,” wrote Erwin Chemerinsky in The Los Angeles Times. If that’s the case, it’s unlikely that a majority of them will find a right to same-sex marriage implied by the U.S. Constitution.

Facing defeat in the Supreme Court, as they likely will, the gay and lesbian community will be left to the mercy of state legislatures willing to grant them the now-ruled-to-be privilege, not the right, to marry a person of the same-sex. Quite frankly, the states legislatures that would hypothetically grant such a privilege already have done so.

WHAT THEY OUGHT TO DO BUT ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO DO

Why I would be offering strategy advice to the gay and lesbian community on how they may actually achieve nationwide same-sex marriage is beyond me but knowing of their strong disdain for me on a personal level, I would expect them to do the opposite of whatever I say. Ever hear of the phrase bite off your nose to spite your face?

The real strategy for same-sex marriage in America is the American people. Poll after poll suggests that opposition to same-sex marriage weakens.

A Gallup poll from March 1996 showed that 68% of Americans disapproved of marriages between homosexuals while 27% were in favor. This polling data was taken during the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act and demonstrates a supermajority of Americans favoring marriage between a man and a woman and believing that only such marriages should be valid.

By 2004 that supermajority had slimmed 13 points to 55% of Americans who indicated disapproval of same-sex marriages. The majority of those 13 points went to the other side, bringing the percentage of Americans in support of same-sex marriage in 2004 to 42%.

Gallup came out with more polling data in 2007 indicating that only 53% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage and 46% were in favor. Think about that. A decade passed and support for same-sex marriage grew by 19 points while opposition to it dropped by 15. See the video below for more information.

I believe this is in part where the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) comes from. The “About NOM” section of their website reads:

Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.

Indeed, a decade of polls were showing strong gains for same-sex marriage advocates. The founders of NOM realized there was no organized group on a national level tackling this issue and informing the public of the importance of preserving marriage between a man and a woman.

It is no surprise then, that Gallup polls from 2008 and 2009 both showed increases in public opposition to same-sex marriage peaking at 57% in 2009 before leveling off at 53% this year. That May 2010 Gallup poll showed that only 44% of Americans support same-sex marriage, a 2-point drop in support since 2007.

It is fair to say that the National Organization for marriage has, at the very least, made the public take a second look at same-sex marriage, which would explain the abrupt halt in decreasing opposition to it, and at the very best, turned the momentum of public opinion around, which would explain the decrease in support for same-sex marriage since 2007.

Considering our report analyzing the impact of the 2010 mid-term elections on the same-sex marriage movement, it is fair to say that the prospects for new legislative efforts to redefine marriage are slim and will remain slim through 2012 when conservatives will be motivated and voting in high numbers (again) in opposition to Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Therefore, elections that take place over the next couple years are going to bring about victories for conservative candidates, especially those candidates backed by the Tea Party. Generally speaking those types of candidates are not sympathetic to the homosexual agenda.

Now consider the current conservative lean of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Robert’s Court is unlikely to liberalize anytime in the near future, certainly not before the Court decides the marriage issue in the next few terms.

The question is whether or not this conservative Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts will trump a decade worth of legal victories same-sex marriage advocates have enjoyed in the lower courts. For same-sex marriage advocates, it’s a huge all-or-nothing risk to take.

THEIR STRATEGY IS DOOMED TO BACKFIRE

Especially when public opinion polls indicate fluctuating, yet generally growing support for same-sex marriage over the past decade. American society has become more and more liberal since the 1960’s.

Gallup Poll from December 24, 2009.

Meanwhile, although 78% Americans still claim to be Christians, fewer and fewer Americans understand what Christianity is and were unable to answer basic questions about the Bible in a recent survey conducted by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Compare that to the 89% of Americans that claimed to be Christians in 1973 and 91% in 1948. Likewise, Atheism has grown by over 150% since that 1978 poll.

CNN published a 2009 article America becoming less Christian, survey finds and wrote: “America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether.”

It’s not that Americans are necessarily growing more approving of same-sex marriage or the homosexual agenda; it’s just that they just don’t care anymore.

William Donahue, president of the Catholic League attributed the survey’s findings to the growth of individualism, the article reads, and told Lou Dobbs: "The three most dreaded words are thou shalt not… they are saying I don't want to be told what to do with my life."

Now the LGBT community is on the verge of losing it all in the Supreme Court with only their impatience to blame. A 2013 or 2014 Supreme Court decision against same-sex marriage would be devastating to their cause and will set them back decades, regardless of the direction public opinion polls go.

I can very easily see a time in the not-so-distant future when a 2015 Gallup poll, for instance, shows for the first time that a majority (or at lease plurality) of Americans support same-sex marriage. But by then that won’t mean anything because the recently printed Robert’s Court ruling affirming marriage as a legitimate state interest which may be limited to a man and a woman will still have that fresh-out-of-the-printer smell. Have you ever smelled a new book? You know what I’m talking about.

MORALITY IS AWOL

It’s clear as day that America’s moral compass has been knocked around and the calibration has since been thrown off. The moral direction our country is going makes me think of the Perfect Storm movie. The interesting thing is that, according to Real Clear Politics, over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, too.

And this is, of course, welcome news for gays and lesbians who utter separation of church and state arguments like champion orators. It’s a case of too-bad-for-them, very-good-for-us as even their best orators won’t be able to surmount the looming strength of recent Supreme Court ruling against their cause.

Gay activists conduct first legal demonstration in Moscow

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:13:00 +0000

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, dismissed from office Sept. 27
by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

As an American citizen currently residing in the Russian Federation I have taken a particular interest in the recent development in Moscow regarding Yuri Luzhkov, the now former mayor of Russia’s capital, who was recently fired after a series of scandals led the President to lose confidence in his leadership.

Mr. Luzhkov has been an adamant opponent of homosexuals.

I chose the words of that statement very purposefully as there is a difference between opposing the homosexual agenda, opposing homosexuality and opposing homosexuals themselves.

Yuri Luzhkov’s actions against the gay and lesbian community during his tenure as Moscow’s Mayor went beyond the pale.

Chapter 2, Article 31 of Russia’s Constitution reads: “Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.”

Yet year after year, Mr. Luzhkov refused to grant gays and lesbians permission to do so, claiming a gay pride parade, for example, would be ‘satanic’. To make matters worse, every time they held a rally or demonstration in spite of the ban, Mayor Luzhkov had the police break up the rally and arrest the participants.

Besides denying gay and lesbian Russian citizens their constitutionally-protected right to a peaceful assembly, Yuri Luzhkov is on record publically insulting them, singling them out and calling them ‘faggots’, among other slurs.

This is the kind of rhetoric we could do without and although I recognize that his rhetoric and opposition to gays and lesbians is not related to his removal from office on September 27, in the name of human and constitutionally protected rights I praise President Dmitri Medvedev’s decision to fire him.

The gay and lesbian community in the United States plays the victim status like champions yet the discrimination and harassment they face is nothing compared to what existed under Mayor Luzhkov.

As a side note it would be pertinent to give Mr. Luzhkov credit for, over the course of the last 18 years, transforming Moscow into a modern and commercial metropolis of the 21^st century. That will likely be the legacy that he leaves behind and the people of Russia will remember him for that.

A gay activist on September 21, a week
before Mayor Luzhkov was fired.

That is why I was I fact delighted to read the headline in The Moscow News, a newspaper currently celebrating 80 years in print, that reads: “Moscow police protect gay protesters”.

Apparently, three days after Luzhkov was removed from office, gays and lesbians assembled together in Moscow and held their first legal demonstration. The police came in heavy numbers but this time they were protecting the protesters and the two that were arrested were counter-protesters, men dressed in black in opposition to them.

Nikolai Alekseyev, a well-known gay rights activist in Russia, said the event was historic. “Sexual minorities for the first time ever were able to demonstrate while being protected by the Russian police. I think this is a historic day.”

The same gay activist on October 1,
three days after Mayor Luzhkov was fired.

Indeed it was. These are the kind of rights that all must support for gays and lesbians and I stand with them today in support of these rights, in praise of Moscow’s police and with hope for continued progress.

Out of fairness it should also be mentioned that the permit for this rally wasn't specifically for a gay rights demonstration but was connected to the recent unexplained arrest and detention of a gay activist. City officials said if the demonstration's message changed beyond what the permit for the rally specified, that the police would be ordered to break up the demonstration.

However, I must reiterate that while we support the basic human and constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, there is no right to marry a person of the same sex. Let us all understand the difference between gay rights, which are parallel to human rights, and the pursuit of same-sex marriage, of which there is no right.

This right does not exist in the Russian constitution.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in June that:

"Article 12 enshrined the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The court acknowledged that a number of contracting states had extended marriage to same-sex partners, but went on to say that this reflected their own vision of the role of marriage in their societies and did not flow from an interpretation of the fundamental right as laid down by the contracting states in the Convention in 1950."

It doesn’t exist in the U.S. Constitution, either. Rookie Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan took that position in her confirmation hearings and the same idea is supported by federal precedent in Baker v. Nelson.

Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:41:00 +0000

So I came across a series of headlines that refer to a recent study which says that children of lesbian couples grow up just as well as children in households where there is both a mother and a father. These articles drew my attention because it goes right in the face of one of the core arguments of the effort to protect marriage: the idea that marriage is about family made by mothers and fathers together, who play distinct parental roles.

Dr. Henny Bos,
co-investigator

Dr. Nanette Gartrell,
lead investigator

Upon finishing the article I sat back and thought I better prepare for the onslaught of homosexual activists who will be coming to my Facebook page to post this article and to scream its results at the top of their internet lungs. And then I immediately wanted to know who conducted this study.

I'll be honest. My first impressions of the research team led me to start accepting the study as legit and professional. I mean, the research team is led by a Doctor Nanette Gartrell, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Center of Excellence in Women's Health for the University of California at San Francisco and a former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School. The setting of all this being in San Francisco raised a little red flag but I let it go at the time. After all, coincidences do happen, right?

Also on the team was Doctor Henny Bos, an Assistant Professor of Childhood Education and Family Support at the Department of Education of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. Talk about a long name, right? Dr. Bos is listed as a co-investigator.

So far my investigation into this study has concluded that it was conducted by an international team of doctors with expertise in relevant fields. The other project research staff includes a registered nurse at the San Francisco General Hospital, a statistical analyst who is a former member of the Stanford Medical School faculty and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

At this point anyone opposed to homosexual parenting must be pretty discouraged. That staff is pretty solid and I'll be the first to admit it.

That is when the truth became clear to me. At the bottom of their webpage is a link to their supporters and funders. I'd like to go through each of these funders and let my readers decide for themselves if this study was research or propaganda. Remember, the project staff is a highly professional team. So all that is left are those behind the study, providing the grants and necessary financial assistance.

The first funder is The Arcus Foundation. It didn't take me more than ten seconds to understand what their position on this matter is. Upon opening their website, in big orange letters one will clearly read that The Arcus Foundation funds "pressing social justice and conservation issues." Furthermore, they openly claim to "work to advance LGBT rights". LGBT is an acronym used often in this report and stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender". The Arcus Foundation also seems to be interested in protecting the great apes but that's an unrelated matter.

As of June 1st, 2010, they have a new Executive Director, Fred Davie, who is replacing Urvashi Vaid so she can go off to write a book (most certainly a LGBT rights book) and, according to their site, "to continue her longstanding leadership role in the LGBT and social justice movements." I'll come back to Urvashi Vaid later on.

On to funder number two. Based in San Francisco like much of the project research team, The Horizons Foundation is another group which proudly and clearly states its support for the LGBT community on its website - this time in blue. Within ten seconds one will immediately understand that The Horizons Foundation "serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community." At least that's what they have printed right smack dab in the middle of their home page.

So what is this organization? Who runs it? Well, its Executive Director is Roger Doughty, who has served in many different posts around the country - all promoting the LGBT agenda. For example, Roger has worked as the Executive Director of Horizons Community in Chicago, IL. For those of you unfamiliar with that group, it is the largest LGBT social service and advocacy group of the Midwest.

Before that, Roger was the Director of Program Administration for the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. He was (is?) the President of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in Washington, D.C. and since 1998 has been a board member on the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Practically the each of the staff members of The Horizon Foundation are LGBT activists, lawyers and advisors.

Devesh Khatu is their Development Officer. He boasts that he is a "long-time volunteer at organizations that serve the LGBT community."

Their Program Officer, Jewelle Gomez, was a founding member of the Astraea National Lesbian Foundation and wrote a book which won two awards from Lambda Literary - a national gay book review organization that annually celebrates the best of lesbian and gay books.

The third funder is The California Endowment, which after a ten-minute review of their website, board of directors, mission statement, etc, I must say seems like a legit operation not controlled by the homosexual agenda like the first two. The same goes for The California Wellness Foundation, the project's fourth funder. So far we've got two LGBT activist groups and two neutral organizations.

The Colorado-based Gill Foundation is the fifth funder. In blue letters along the top of its website the Foundation claims its status as "advocates for LGBT equality." The foundation openly supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

The founder of The Gill Foundation is himself a homosexual, married to another man and claims to be a strong supporter of social justice.

Remember Urvashi Vaid, the outgoing Executive Director of The Arcus Foundation? Well, she has been a board member of The Gill Foundation since 2004. The Gill website also speaks about The Arcus Foundation as "a funder of the LGBT movement," except here they give us more detailed information about Urvashi herself.

Apparently, she's a community organizer just like our current President. She worked for four years as the director of the Governance and Civil Society Unit of the Peace and Social Justice Program. She also claims to have worked for many years with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in various roles including Executive Director.

She's worked for the ACLU as an attorney and is a former columnist for the Advocate, a gay publication.

In 1996 she authored the book "Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation." So wait a minute. Does that mean that one of the funders of this research project is an expert on "mainstreaming" homosexuality? Wouldn't these research results do just that - make homosexual parenting acceptable and thus, eventually mainstream?

So the next funder is not going to need any further explanation beyond its name but I will include some for for a little added flavor.

Funder number six is the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) which boasts itself as the "leader in LGBT health since 1981".

Officially, the organization claims to be the world's largest and oldest association of homosexual, bisexual and transgender health care professionals.

However, it's worthy to point out that this so-called "health care association" runs its very own "marriage equality initiative" aimed at creating a link between the same-sex marriage movement and GLMA's supporters in order to "bring the medical community's weight to the table of marriage equality." Their words, not mine.

Funder number seven is the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, which promotes and supports human rights, and according to its website is dedicated to social change and justice in the United States. Their website is seriously deficient of information. Nevertheless, a few minutes of research turned up some details which give us a clue as to its political leanings. This Foundation is listed as a human rights funder on the Human Rights Funders website.

Here is where Mertz Gilmore areas of grant funding are listed. Among those listed are "sexual minorities" and "equality". Now don't let that throw you off. It's part of their overall PR strategy to make homosexuality mainstream. Only relatively recently have homosexual activists begun to inject the word "equality" into the marriage debate. A visual example of this is GLMA's "marriage equality initiative" but earlier the PR strategy was about legalizing "gay marriage" and then it was about legalizing "same-sex marriage" and now it's about "marriage equality".

After the first glance of the eighth funder, I thought we had our third neutral organization. But that was just my initial impression of the American Psychological Foundation. Any foundation that has been awarded for "combating homophobia" is clearly pro-homosexuality.

Now combating homophobia maybe a noble cause. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else and should be treated like people. I'm a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage but that's not because of any hated of homosexuals. Nevertheless, boasting about combating homophobia is the type of language only used by those on that side of the issue.

The American Psychological Foundation is brought to you by The American Psychological Association, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in the early 1970s. However, in 2009 they quietly confirmed that there is no evidence of a "gay gene".

However, if that doesn't satisfy you for proof of their tilt, I'd like to present for your reading pleasure a February 2010 publication by the American Psychological Association entitled "Claiming a Place at the Family Table: Gay and Lesbian Families in the 21st Century".

The PDF starts out something like this: "In light of recent setbacks to marriage equality…" Setbacks? You mean the restoration of marriage in California in 2008? Or do you mean the rejection of same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009? Those aren't setbacks, those are steps forward and anyone who claims they are setbacks clearly is on a homosexual agenda.

Next on our list of funders is the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation, which sports an amateur website and doesn't provide much information at all - at least about its political leanings. The website is dedicated to applying for one of their grants.

However, a simple Google search of the Foundation provides the information we are looking for. For some reason The Family Equality Council comes up when you search them. Well, what is that organization? Seems like a play on words mocking the Family Research Council, a pro-traditional marriage group which opposes same-sex marriage.

But the Family Equality Council, according to its website, "works at all levels of government to advance full social and legal equality for LGBT families by ensuring that they are included in legislation, policies and practices impacting families." The Equality Council openly supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

So how is that associated with the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation? Well, maybe it would have to do with the fact that one of the places I checked my spelling of "Babson" when writing this report was on the list of supporters of the Family Equality Council. Yes, along with the LGBT Bar Association, The Arcus Foundation (remember them?), and The Gill Foundation, the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation is listed as a financial supporter of the Family Equality Council.

The Uncommon Legacy Foundation is the tenth funder on our list and they don't have a website but a Google search pulls it up real quick. Apparently, it's a scholarship fund which dishes out $1,000 to "outstanding lesbian undergraduate and graduate full-time students". In order to receive the scholarship, one must demonstrate their commitment or contribution to the LGBT community.

As a side note they claim to have the website "www.uncommonlegacy.org" but I was unable to load it. That maybe due to the fact that I am in Russia at the moment and for some reason, I often have trouble accessing pro-homosexuality websites. Give it a shot.

So we have one funder left to discuss and there are only two neutral organizations which funded this research and eight biased financiers which are dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda.

Our final funder is The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. According to its website, the Williams Institute "advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship," which it hands over to "judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public."

Bradley Sears, the Executive Director of the Williams Institute, interned for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the national gay rights legal advocacy group which is currently involved in lawsuits around the Nation to legalize same-sex marriage and to repeal DOMA. He also interned for the ACLU's National Gay and Lesbian and AIDS Project.

The Williams Institute's Research Director, Lee Badgett, is an author of two gay-themed books focusing on the economic lives of homosexuals and about the future of society after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Its Development Director, Matt Strieker, is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. He's also active in the Young Professional's Council, which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The list of participants at the Williams Institute goes on and on - too far for me to list them all but it even goes as far as Taya Ball, the Administrative Assistant, who wrote a gay-themed thesis for her B.S. in Psychology.

This Institute is monopolized by the gay agenda.

Let's bring it full circle. Doctor Nanette Gartrell, the one who led the twenty year study is herself a Williams Distinguished Scholar. Yes, of the Williams Institute at UCLA mentioned above. Beyond that, personal lives are personal lives but in this case it can't be ignored. Dr. Gartrell is a lesbian and married to the feminist, activist and filmmaker Diane "Dee" Mosbacher.

So long story short, I'd hope that my investigative report has at the very least provided you with reason to not accept the results of this new study (propaganda?) as they are presented to you.

Nine out of eleven of the project funders openly and actively support the homosexual agenda. One of its key members is a specialist focused on making homosexuality a mainstream part of society. This is a clear aspect of their plan - present "research" (propaganda), which contradicts the common belief that homosexual households are not the best environment for raising children.

Children not only need a mother and a father but have the right to a mother and a father. When circumstances don't permit that, it is unfortunate. It doesn't mean that we should start promoting and encouraging that unfortunate circumstance by supporting same-sex marriage/adoption or the general homosexual agenda as a whole.

This article was originally printed on June 7, 2010 on our original website. It has been reposted here as we continue to transition to this website.

Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:01:00 +0000

Most of the talk about compromising on the issue of same-sex marriage revolves around legalizing civil unions for homosexual partners as an alternative to same-sex marriage. This is a compromise that should be avoided if you value the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.

Some are saying that
the once Republican,
now Independent
Charlie Crist will say
anything to get elected.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for Senate running against Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek as an Independent after bowing out of the Republican primary after facing defeat, has recently come out clarifying his support for gay rights, including support of civil unions and same-sex adoption.

On the other hand, Crist underscored his opposition to same-sex marriage. To support same-sex civil unions in the place of same-sex marriage is a losing stance to take, historically speaking and here's why.

Currently, five states and the District of Columbia recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Three of these states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire – all started with civil unions for same-sex couples.

On July 1st, 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples which provided the same rights and status as marriage. Nine years later, when Vermont would legalize same-sex marriage in the spring of 2009, Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, praised Vermont for its ‘important steps forward’.

“Vermont opened an important back door,” she said, referring to the civil unions. “Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage.”

In neighboring New Hampshire, there is another same-sex-civil unions-to-same-sex-marriage pattern. In 2007, the New Hampshire House and Senate passed its civil unions bill, which provided the same rights and status of marriage. Governor Lynch said he supported same-sex civil unions because it was a matter of “conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination,” and the new law became effective January 1, 2008.

It would be only two short years before New Hampshire state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and on January 1, 2010, the law took effect. Per the same-sex marriage law, couples who entered into civil unions will see those civil unions legally designated and recorded as a marriage on January 1, 2011 if they don’t manually apply for a marriage license before then.

Gov. Lynch changed his
stance on same-sex
civil unions, too: That
they weren't enough.

Mr. Lynch, who is up for re-election this year, defended his flip flop on the issue saying that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.” He would go on to repeat his reasoning for supporting same-sex civil unions and apply it to same-sex marriage:

“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”

Isn’t that why the homosexual activists pushed for civil unions in 2007? New Hampshire State Senator Fenton Groen’s comments on the same-sex marriage law couldn’t be any more accurate: "The pro-gay marriage people have been very disingenuous. They told us two years ago that if civil unions were passed, that would completely satisfy them. Within two years, they have completely changed their minds."

Well, what did one of New Hampshire’s gay residents, Rob Davis, who entered into a civil union in 2008 with his partner Dean Davis, say about the civil unions? "It didn't go far enough."

In Connecticut the situation was very similar. Legalized in 2005, civil unions for same-sex couples provided for the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. By doing this, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to adopt civil unions.

Connecticut, like its neighbor to the north, brought up legislation for same-sex marriage only two short years after implementing civil unions. It passed the House Judiciary committee that year and although Governor Jodi Rell promised to veto the legislation because she felt that civil unions for same-sex couples “covered the concerns that had been raised,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut guaranteed same-sex marriage rights the following year in 2008.

So in this case the court intervened to convert civil unions into marriage. Was it a surprise? Not for lesbian Anne Stanback, president of the Love Makes a Family consortium. In 2003, she was advocating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples where she argued: “Would passage of such a bill be an important step forward? Absolutely. Would it be the end of our fight? Absolutely not!”

Brian Brown, President of the
National Organization for Marriage.

Brian Brown, who once worked with the Family Institute of Connecticut and is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage, put it this way: "Some legislators thought civil unions was a way out," he said. "They falsely think it is some kind of compromise, but the proponents have made clear that civil unions is only a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage."

That’s exactly right, Brian, and it can be seen in New Jersey, too. In fact, had Republican Chris Christie lost in his election bid to replace Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey, gay marriage would be legal there today and would likely be legal in New York State, too.

New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex couples back in 2006, which made the Garden State the third U.S. state to offer such civil unions. Saundra Toby-Heath and her partner were among the seven gay couples who sued the State of New Jersey to redefine marriage. With the adoption of civil unions in 2006, Saundra said "We acknowledge this is a huge step forward."

According to an Associated Press news article from December 15, 2006, gay rights groups also shared her sentiment, saying that not calling the civil unions “marriage” created a different and inferior institution. They did, however, welcome the civil unions as a step towards full same-sex marriage.

Then in 2008 a commission full of gay rights advocates was set up to examine civil unions in New Jersey. You know what they concluded? That the civil union law created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples.

According to a statement on one of New Jersey’s largest gay rights organizations, Garden State Equality, the goal is same-sex marriage: “Garden State Equality is fighting for real marriage equality and will not settle for civil unions, which are separate, unequal and do not consistently work to protect same-sex couples in the real world. But civil unions are a notable step forward.”

New Jersey’s state legislature voted against same-sex marriage late last year after Chris Christie was elected and lawmakers failed to rush the same-sex marriage bill to outgoing Governor Corzine’s desk in a midst of scheming that gave democratic process in New Jersey a bad stink. That was luck. Before the election, the gay marriage bill was on track for passage and approval by the governor.

Political winds at the time allowed a republican to be elected governor of one of America’s bluest states. Had Corzine been re-elected, he would have fulfilled his promised to sign same-sex marriage legislation into law in early 2010.

Civil unions have historically
not been satisfactory for
same-sex couples and have
paved the way to eventual
same-sex marriage.

So this point here is that the homosexuals and their activists pushing the homosexual agenda are not up for compromising. Their goal is same-sex marriage; gender-neutral marriage in every state across the Nation.

Legalizing civil unions is not a good strategy because a few years later, they will use that as the framework as a steppingstone to pushing for same-sex marriage. In their own words it is clear. Barbara Cox, associate dean at California Western School of Law and co-chair of the national Freedom to Marry Organization:

“But we aren’t going to get marriage until we get civil unions. You know, the people that I have talked to in Vermont, the people who are doing this nationwide, keep saying we need to do that [civil unions] as an important first step. But what I believe that what we have to do as a community is that each one of us has to
walk out of here tonight saying. ‘This is something that I can do to make a step forward.’”

Don’t allow same-sex civil unions. Supporting same-sex civil unions is the same as supporting same-sex marriage. If you value marriage between a man and a woman you must oppose any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples that mirrors or mocks marriage.

What impact will 2010 elections have on same-sex marriage movement?

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 03:53:00 +0000

Going into the highly anticipated Fall 2010 midterm elections, there are some 27 bi-cameral state legislatures which are controlled by the Democratic Party and 14 bi-cameral state legislatures under Republican control.

Another 8 state legislatures are divided between the Democrats and Republicans whereas one party controls the State Senate; the other the General Assembly. Nebraska, unique in the Nation, maintains a non-partisan, unicameral state legislature.

Red represents legislatures controlled by Republicans
Blue represents legislatures controlled by Democrats
Purple represents split legislatures

As for Governorships, the Democrats maintain a plurality going into November, as well. Twenty-six states have a Democrat Governor while twenty-three have a Republican.

Florida’s current Governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for Senate in Florida recently changed party from Republican to Independent after facing defeat in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio, making Florida the only state with neither a Democrat nor Republican governor.

Of the twenty-seven states controlled by the Democratic Party, seven of them have seen or are expected to see important legislative battles on the issue of same-sex marriage.

In New Hampshire, a state in which same-sex marriage became legal on January 1 this year saw two attempts shortly after the law went into effect to restore the traditional definition of marriage in the state. The constitutional amendment proposal failed 201 – 135 while the follow-up attempt to repeal the recently enacted same-sex marriage law failed 210 – 109.

Going into November, the Democratic Party holds a majority in the New Hampshire House of Representatives 219 –174 and there are 7 vacancies. The State Senate is also Democratic-controlled, but not by such a wide margin. Fourteen Democrats hold the majority over ten Republicans.

Louis Jacobson, a staff writer with PolitiFact.com and former deputy editor of Roll Call, claims that both the New Hampshire State House and State Senate are toss-ups. He writes: “Both chambers of the legislature are tossups, both the narrowly divided Senate and the enormous state House, where Democrats demonstrated in 2006 that a party can flip many seats in a single election.”

Whether or not a change from blue to red in New Hampshire’s state legislature will have an impact on the state’s same-sex marriage law remains to be seen and is likely dependent on who wins the gubernatorial election.

Governor John Lynch of
New Hampshire

John Lynch, a Democrat who campaigned against same-sex marriage for years only to sign the gay marriage bill in 2009 has been hovering at or just below 50% throughout the year. He was +11 against likely challenger John Stephen in a poll of 500 likely voters by Rasmussen Reports from August 5, 2010. New polling data from that race is ought to be coming soon but any incumbent polling on average under 49% over the past seven months is vulnerable.

In a state where 73% feel their personal finances are getting “worse” or are “about the same” and in a state where Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 10 points, the President is holding onto a 49% approval rating. Even the President acknowledges that the economic recovery is sluggish, therefore, an opinion that the economy is “about the same” is negative, not positive.

New Jersey is not holding any state legislative elections this year so perhaps a handful of the Garden State’s progressive politicians will be spared the coming GOP wave. It was last November, however, when the state saw its GOP wave in the election of Republican Chris Christie and the defeat of incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.

Republican Christ Christie was elected
Governor of New Jersey, ousting liberal
Democrat Jon Corzine. Christie is seen as
a rising star in the Republican Party.

As you can remember, December 2009 was a critical month for those in favor of and opposed to, same-sex marriage. With Democratic majorities in the State House and State Senate and liberal Democrat Jon Corzine in the Governor’s Mansion, New Jersey was on track to be the next U.S. State to legalize same-sex marriage. Then Chris Christie happened - a Republican who believes in marriage between a man and a woman was elected Governor in a reliably Democrat state.

This is undeniably the single most important factor in the defeat of the same-sex marriage bill. Realizing a Republican opposed to same-sex marriage was on his way in, the Democrats scurried and attempted to pass same-sex marriage while Governor Corzine was on his way out. The bill failed after the holiday break by a 20 – 14 vote twelve days before the new governor was inaugurated.

As long as Christie is Governor, and short of any judicial action, the prospects for any attempt at legalizing same-sex marriage through legislative action are dim although there will not be any change in the Democrat’s majority of the state legislature.

Around the same time, New York State was flirting with its same-sex marriage bill, which had been passed multiple times by the New York General Assembly, majority Democrat 107 – 42 but had been held up by the State Senate, where the Democrats hold a two seat advantage over the Republicans 32 – 30.

The New York General Assembly passed the same-sex marriage bill in April 2009 by an 89 – 52 vote. In November, the State Senate opened a special session to take on economic matters and to consider the same-sex marriage bill but ultimately it was postponed until the end of the year. On December 2, it was soundly defeated 38 – 24 in the Senate after the General Assembly passed it again 88 – 51.

Governor Patterson's approval
ratings along with numerous
scandals forced him out of the race.

New York’s current Governor, the legally blind David Patterson, had championed the bill and aggressively sought its passage, promising to sign it into law. Patterson, sporting record low approval ratings eventually bowed out of the 2010 gubernatorial election paving the way for the popular Andrew Cuomo to announce his bid to become New York’s next governor.

Cuomo has been openly supportive of same-sex marriage on the campaign trail and is highly expected to win in November. A late August poll from Rasmussen Reports puts Andrew Cuomo +32 points over likely Republican nominee Rick Lazio.

Yet the Governor’s Mansion is not where a GOP take-over is expected. Nor in the General Assembly. Both are predicted to remain under Democratic control after November.

It’s the State Senate that’s possibly in for a GOP take-over. For a Senate chamber that voted against same-sex marriage with a Democrat majority, the prospects for passage of same-sex marriage in a Republican Senate are all the more less likely. Louis Jacobson writes of the election: “Despite a cycle of party switches, lockouts, fiscal problems, a dysfunctional relationship with the governor and an excess of scandal-tarred figures, the slim Democratic majority is getting away with a designation of tossup, thanks to the state's general Democratic lean…".

Rhode Island is an interesting state. The Democrats in the State House and State Senate hold a larger majority in a legislative chamber than I’ve ever seen. The Democrats control the State House by more than an 11-to-1 margin with 69 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Similarly, the Rhode Island State Senate outnumbers Republicans by more than an 8-to-1 margin with 33 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Barack Obama won the state by nearly a 28-point margin over John McCain in 2008. Today he’s enjoying an approval rating of about 56%, which represents more than an 8-point drop in support.

Rhode Island’s last two governors have been Republicans and the party has occupied the Governor’s Mansion since 1995. Somehow the state has remained a beachhead of reason in liberal New England, not having legalized same-sex marriage as its neighbors to the North and West have.

Rhode Island's current governor, Donald Carcieri, is a
strong advocate for traditional marriage.

Rhode Island’s current Governor, Donald Carcieri, is a strong advocate of marriage between a man and a woman and a member of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage but is barred from seeking a third term due to term limits. He’s leaving office with an approval rating at about 49% up against 48% who disapprove.

The election this November between Clinton-backed Frank Caprio, former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee and John Robitaille, a Republican and current aide to outgoing Governor Carcieri, is a toss-up according to the Cook Political Report, the New York Times, Real Clear Politics and CQ Politics.

Most recent polling from Rasmussen Reports puts Caprio 6-points ahead of Chafee and 18-points up on Robitaille. That poll was taken in mid-August. Again, new polling data ought to be coming.

A spokesman from the Caprio campaign told OneMan-OneWoman.org that Caprio was for same-sex marriage, citing a pledge Caprio made at a March, 2010 rally to sign a same-sex marriage bill if it were to reach his desk. Lincoln Chafee, a known supporter of same-sex marriage, who was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign when running for Senate, made the same pledge.

However, Caprio also claims to be a practicing Catholic and personally against same-sex marriage. In a January 2009 interview, Caprio said: "I would continue to be consistent with personal views and if I could wave a magic wand I would like if people followed my views and my church's teachings...If I were to run [for governor] I wouldn't be running to advocate [same-sex marriage]."

His pledge to support same-sex marriage also drew skepticism from Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who referenced the same interview. Lynch has since dropped out of the primary, set for September 14.

Iowa, a state that voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by over 9 points is not looking at Democrats so favorably this time around. The President is currently holding onto a 48% approval rating.

Iowa’s State Senate is majority Democrat 32 – 18 over the Republicans. Jacobson categorized the State Senate as leaning Democrat. Likewise, the State House is run by a 56 – 44 majority of Democrats and is categorized as a toss-up.

Republicans tried a handful of times in 2009 to force a vote on a same-sex marriage ban, all of which ultimately failed or were ruled out of order by the Democratic majority. In fact, the leader of said Democratic majority, Senator Gronstal, vowed to block a vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman “at every opportunity.”

The political atmosphere is boosting the GOP’s chances at “winning back one or both of the state's legislative chambers,” Jacobson said. “The state House is a tossup and the state Senate leans Democratic, but these ratings could bounce around in the coming months.”

Former Republican Governor Terry
Branstad is vying for his old job back.

Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics has placed the Iowa gubernatorial race in the “likely GOP” column, with polls favoring Republican challenger and former Governor Terry Branstad +16 in the poll from Rasmussen Reports from August. Iowa’s current governor, Chet Culver, refused to intervene in the state’s 2009 legalization of same-sex marriage by judicial order. Culver is holding onto a 37% approval and a stark 61% disapproval rating.

Three of the judges who voted to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, including the state’s Chief Justice, are up for a retention vote this year and Republican Bob Vander Plaats from Sioux City has organized a campaign called “Iowa for Freedom” to oust them. Governor Culver is openly critical of the effort.

Is it conceivable that a newly elected Republican majority in the State House and/or the State Senate, alongside their likely Republican counterpart in the Governor’s Mansion would seek to pass a constitutional amendment and put the issue before the voters of Iowa? They attempted as the minority party, they’ll go for it as the ruling party for sure. When the Republicans controlled the Iowa State House in 2005, they passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The State Senate at the time was evenly divided and never took a vote on the issue.

Iowa’s neighbor to the North is another state where this year’s midterm elections will play a role in the future of same-sex marriage in America. Democrats in the Minnesota State Senate outnumber Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 margin with 46 Democrats and 21 Republicans. The State House is not as tilted against the Republicans but the Democrats still enjoy a commanding majority with 87 seats to the Republicans’ 47 seats. Due to what Louis Jacobson ties to Minnesota’s fiscal situation, “a shift of control – especially in the House – isn’t out of the question.”

Efforts at amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage failed as recently as 2009. Likewise, attempts to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in the State House and State Senate were never given hearings in their respective Judiciary Committees.

The fate of those bills were not very positive anyway, as the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, a likely 2012 presidential contender staunchly defended traditional marriage throughout his political career. That is why this year’s gubernatorial election will be the key factor in deciding the fate of same-sex marriage in the land of 10,000 lakes.

Republican Tom Emmer is tied with Democrat Mark Dayton
in a recent poll by Minnesota Public Radio.

Most recent polling data courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio has Republican State Representative Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage and former State Senator Mark Dayton, who supports same-sex marriage, tied at 34 points apiece with Independent candidate Tom Horner, also a supporter of same-sex marriage, racking in 13 points. In the same poll, 44% said if Barack Obama were to endorse Mark Dayton, they would be less likely to vote for him.

Nonetheless, the July – August average of polling data on Real Clear Politics puts Mark Dayton up 8.3 points and thus the state is categorized as “lean Democratic”. Minnesotans haven’t elected a Democratic governor since 1986. Yet a victory by the Democrats in November in the election of Mark Dayton as Governor may inject life and a sense of opportunity to pass same-sex marriage legislation.

In Maryland, while the strong Democratic majorities in the State House (104 – 36) and State Senate (33 – 14) are not considered to be in play this November, the race for the next Governor is considered a toss-up.

Same-sex marriage advocates have been touting recent polling from Maryland that indicates that a plurality of voters in Maryland support same-sex marriage. Gay and lesbian activists inaccurately portrayed the polling data as a ‘majority’ when in fact it was merely a ‘plurality’.

Nevertheless, the data puts Maryland on our scopes for states endangered by the homosexual agenda as the polling data from the Washington Post undoubtedly encouraged anxious activists to expand their agenda into the Old Line State. Most recent polling data from Rasmussen Reports puts Republican and former Governor Bob Ehrlich and incumbent Democrat Martin O’Malley tied at 47%.

Maryland is a solidly blue state like New Jersey and is giving President Obama a 56% approval rating, (45% disapproval rating), only two years after the state voted for him over McCain by more than 25 points. Likewise, 54% of Marylanders approve of the job O’Malley is doing compared to a 45% disapproval rating. The two-percent discrepancy between Obama and O’Malley are unsure how they feel about the latter. At the same time, 55% of Marylanders felt the economy was in “poor” condition and 64% felt the economy was “getting worse” or was “about the same” compared to 31% who felt the economy was “better”.

Nevertheless, a Democratic governor with a 54% approval rating in a Democratic state won by a Democratic president two years ago by 25 points should be safe. Yet the race is categorized as a toss-up and the results could be critical in the struggle against same-sex marriage.

By no means are these seven states the only states where this year’s midterm elections will have a significant impact on the course of and determine the success or failure of same-sex marriage in the near future. The seven states are merely quick glimpse into some of the more embattled regions of the Nation where the issue is more on the forefront than we’d actually want it to be.

Across the Nation, the current economic situation, budget deficits, a growing federal government, high taxes, government bailouts, Obamacare, and unemployment, among a slew of other problems intensified by Barack Obama’s domestic agenda are for sure having at least one unintended consequence for gays and lesbians and their supporters: decreased likelihood of successful legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and founder of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, an online newsletter that touts nearly 100% accuracy predicting U.S. House, U.S. Senate and Governor races, as well as Electoral College results since 2004, is currently predicting that the GOP will pick up some 8 governorships and gain 300 - 500 seats in state legislatures across the land resulting in taking majority control in at least 8, possibly up to 12 state legislative chambers.

This carries significant meaning as the next legislative sessions will be using data collected by the 2010 Census for appropriation of representation in Congress and the redistricting of their congressional districts. The majority party gets to draw the lines.

Running a campaign focused on fiscal issues, the Republican candidate for Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, has been leading in the polls by double digits. LePage is socially conservative, having posted on his campaign website “I also support traditional marriage, joining a majority of Maine voters who decided last fall that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved.”

If elected, LePage will be replacing Governor Baldacci, who signed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2008. Most recent polling data from Public Policy Polling has LePage up 14 points against Democratic challenger and a 32-point lead over the Independent challenger. His election is critical due to the fact that the State House, which voted to approve same-sex marriage, is not considered to be in play this November and considering the fact that Jesse Connolly, the campaign manager for Protect Maine Equality, had this to say after Mainers rejected same-sex marriage in 2008: "We'll be here fighting. We'll be working. We will regroup."

The State Senate, however, is. Louis Jacobson says: “The nearly 2-to-1 Democratic margin in the state House should hold even in a tough midterm cycle for the party. But the state Senate, which is much closer and which has often been competitive in past cycles, is in play once again. Maine's celebrated independent streak and its public-financing law could meld with anti-incumbent sentiments to produce a volatile fight for control. It rates leans Democratic for now, but that could change.”

It is fair to say that, according to the current political winds, which everyone must accept can change rapidly, that the GOP is going to do very well this November. This success will undoubtedly create a safer legislative environment for the institution of marriage and families.

Having said that, one must keep in mind why the GOP is expected to do so well this year. After all, they are not necessarily popular with the voters, either. In this way, many frustrated and angry voters will be voting Republican this year as it is the lesser of two evils.

So why are the Republicans expecting huge political gains this November? The answer to that question is what (or more likely, who) gays and lesbians can blame and conservatives can thank, for stalled legislative efforts to redefine marriage in the next couple years.

"Seven Senators" Video Targets Boxer, Feingold

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:50:00 +0000

This week we decided to focus our 2010 election efforts on defeating incumbent Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The two of them are among the fourteen Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Their opponents are Carly Fiorina and Ron Johnson, respectively.

Carly supported and voted for Proposition 8 while Barbara Boxer was a vocal opponent of it. Ron Johnson supports marriage between a man and a woman along with 60%+ of his fellow Wisconsinites, who went to the polls in 2006 to approve a statewide ban on same-sex marriage by nearly 2/3rds.

Accordingly, we have donated to their campaigns and intend on doubling, if not tripling, our contributions in the coming weeks. We are also pushing our newest video on the Internet.

This year we have a real chance to vote them out of office. It is our goal to work and to continue to work to ensure that each politician who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act is voted out of office.

Republican Dino Rossi is challenging incumbent Democrat
Patty Murray in a close senate race in Washington.

We've also been donating and working to support Dino Rossi's senate campaign in Washington State to defeat and retire incumbent Senator Patty Murray and will continue to do what we can to help on that front as well.

Patty Murray has been rated 100% by the Human Rights Campaign, which means her support for gay rights goes well beyond 'rights'.

Although there is no right to same-sex marriage, Patty Murray continues to think otherwise.

As a side front along these same lines, we've decided to reach out to Boxer and Feingold's small donors. We feel as though these people can't fully understand to whom they are donating their money. If they did, then we don't see any conceivable circumstance that they would continue donating to them.

Using a similar strategy thought up by advocates of same-sex marriage in Washington State in the Referendum 71 battle, we will be using public records available from the Federal Elections Commission and encourage people to hold their neighbors accountable. We are going to be asking people to explain themselves.

In our view, if you support a politician who votes away the foundations of our country one vote at a time, then you are just as guilty and you have some explaining to do. This is no longer just an issue of supporting one party over another. There are bad politicians in both parties.

This is not a call for violence or confrontation. This is a call for civil engagement. If someone in your neighborhood is donating to someone like California Senator Barbara Boxer or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold or Washington Senator Patty Murray, it isn't out of malice or disdain of country. We truly believe they have the best of intentions.

However, they do not know thy senator. Thus, we've begun using the #KnowThySenator hashtag on our Twitter posts for this topic and we will engage them and ask them for an explanation for their political actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Doe V. Reed that the names of those who sign a petition can not be hidden from the public eye. In that April, 2010 ruling, Justice Alito wrote ''Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed,'' and this is exactly what we seek to do.

Take a look at our video (above) and spread this message.

Marriage Tour Over but Still on the Road

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:37:00 +0000

So everyone knows that the Summer for Marriage Tour wrapped up and wrapped up with a bang on Sunday the 15th but here I am on Wednesday the 18th and still on the road. Although most of the marriage tour crew has returned to their normal lives and daily routines, I volunteered to drive back down to Georgia to return the equipment we rented for the tour.

That meant a 9-hour, 600-mile trek down to Atlanta with a stop overnight in Pineville, NC. Remember Pineville? I stopped there on the way up to Maine to start the marriage tour and met my cousins for lunch at Olive Garden.

Well, I decided to do the same thing this time and met with my Uncle and one of my cousins for dinner at Applebee's. Olive Garden and Applebee's are my two favorite restaurants.

I had the Chicken Alfredo, my favorite pasta dish. However, the strawberry-lemonade they served was a bit weak in flavor and the one they brought me to replace it was even weaker so I just gave up on the drink at that point.

Logistical issues forced another overnight stay in Atlanta - I was trying to be able to drop off the equipment and get a start on the journey back home all in that same day but I ended up having to spend the night. Not a bad idea anyway, I was pretty tired after two days of less than five hours of sleep. It was great to be able to lie down to sleep before 10:00 PM.

While there, I ate dinner at Stevie B's Pizza. It was good and I even was adventurous with my food. I am usually a pretty simple eater. People say I'm picky but it's not about being picky, it's about wanting everything I eat to be simple. Anyway, I tried a slice of Smore's Pizza. It tasted more like cake than pizza but it was still pretty good and very sweet.

The next day, which is today, I left Atlanta and have been driving since about 10:00 AM. I'm an hour or so south of D.C. right now. I'm going there to return the NOM van and then catch a bus back home to Buffalo with an arrival time of 13:45 tomorrow. That will be the end of my Summer for Marriage travel which began on July 7th.

UPDATE: (9:32 PM AUGUST 18)

I have arrived at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Washington, D.C., purchased my bus ticket for $83 and I am now waiting for the 10:00 pm departure for Buffalo. I am really happy I bought Broadband2Go this morning because now I won't be bored for the next 15 hours until I get home. I also have a Netflix account so I can and probably will be streaming movies. It's going to be great.

UPDATE: (3:04 AM AUGUST 19)

After nearly five hours on the bus from D.C. I have arrived at the bus terminal in New York City. I'll be here until 5:40 AM when the bus leaves for Buffalo. I was able to get a few hours of sleep on the bus but spent the majority of the time speaking with two girls I met who are visiting the U.S. from Russia on the summer "Work and Travel" program. They live in New York City and were visiting D.C. for the day.

Marriage Tour Finale Echoes Through D.C.

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:01:00 +0000

Today the Summer for Marriage Tour, a project I helped create and organize over the past seven months has come to an end and it couldn't have wrapped up any better.

We had Brian Brown, Bishop Harry Jackson, Reverand Walter Fauntroy, Commission Robert 'Bob' King, Bishop Neavelle Coles and a special pre-recorded message from Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reverend Fauntroy helped plan the March on Washington where Dr. King delivered the "I Have A Dream' speech, he is a former member of the U.S. Congress and even ran for President back in 1972.

The focus of his message today was that same-sex marriage does not fall into line with the kind of Civil Rights he has been fighting for nor does it fall into line with the kind of Civil Rights that where the foundation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Honestly speaking, even I was a little surprised at today's turnout at the Capitol Building considering the fact that it was literally pouring this morning until about 11:00 AM just before we arrived on site.

Luckily, the rain had stopped by the time we arrived but it was still raining on and off up until about 1:00 PM or so, an hour before we were scheduled to get started. In fact, it was raining enough during set-up that we moved our podium and speakers under one of our tents. We were thinking up a contingency plan for what to do if it kept raining or worse - started to rain during the rally.

Do we use the stage or not? Well, using the stage puts the speaker up about 15 inches higher. That's great but the tent isn't high enough for that . What about taking the 15-inch legs and using the 8-inch legs? Is there enough room? No, still not enough room, no one can see the speaker's head. What about attaching the umbrella to the podium somehow? No, that's not going to work - not stable enough.

We were fortunate to see the rain subside and not be faced with that issue going into the rally.

We started our rally about 25 minutes late today. Seems there was some confusion about the location of the rally, as some of our attendees gathered and were waiting for us on the West Side of the Capitol Building - the side that faces the Washington Monument.

We were actually on the East Side. We also had some issues with parking. Heightened security and all, we had to park our van six blocks away at Union Station. So yes, we started a bit late but that was not a problem.

Today's rally was also streamed live over the Internet via UStream. We experimented with the idea for some of the earlier rallies but we either didn't have the equipment we needed or couldn't get it set up the right way or simply didn't have the extra pair of hands to operate the camera for it. We did today though, and at a peak, I believe some 300 people were viewing today's rally from all over the United States.

View of the DC rally from the rear. Aug. 15, 2010

Nearly as many, if not as many, physically attended today to stand up for marriage.

They came from all over. There were people from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and of course the District of Columbia.

All turned out for marriage between a man and a woman and what an inspiring event it really was.

By this time I had long forgotten about the rain and was busy taking pictures and shooting videos of all the people who came out to stand with us.

At first we were by ourselves and the planned protest of our rally was nowhere to be seen or heard. But that was short-lived. A group of them made there way towards our rally holding a sign that was created in honor of some of the participants friends who had been victims of violence because of their sexuality.

I understand the message and I think it's great that these people came out to stand against violence against homosexuals - we should all be standing up against this kind - or any kind of hate not only against homosexuals but everyone.

Our rally today was not a rally of hate or of violence or of the advocation of violence or hate. The people who attended our rally today were God-loving Christians who stood together to honor the institution of marriage and to stand up for the family. I therefore don't think there is much integrity or honesty in the attempt to link violence geared towards homosexuals to the effort to protect marriage between a man and a woman.

Protesters bear signs claiming NOM is responsible
for the deaths of victimized homosexuals.

Yet those who came out to protest us today used their bullhorns to claim that the National Organization for Marriage's words are lies and even that they "lead to murder".

One sign, as shown to the right, goes as far as to say that "NOM has blood on its hands".

This was not necessary, completely untrue and it merely demonstrates the campaign of deceit our opponents and running in order to gain sympathy for their cause.

Anyway, we also were given the opportunity to listen to Bishop Harry Jackson speak and he rocked the Capitol. He was really great and I have got a video I'm going to put up later on for everyone to have the opportunity of hearing his message.

Bishop Harry Jackson addresses the crowd
in Washington, D.C. on August 15, 2010.

The Bishop also attended our rally in Annapolis, MD earlier on in the tour but I believe he was recovering from a sickness or was simply not feeling well then.

So this was the first time I had the opportunity to listen to this man speak at full strength and it was incredible how he was able to inspire us all.

He led the crowd in a great chant of "Let the People Vote, Let the People Vote, Let the People Vote".

Of course our friends over at the Courage Campaign were at the rally today. By that I mean, the NOM Tour Trackers were walking around. Unfortunate how, to the very last rally they continued to identify themselves in rather shady ways. Most people we talked to after an interview with them told us they thought the NOM Tour Trackers were with us.

Think about it. You're at a rally hosted by the National Organization for Marriage (aka NOM) an organization many got acquainted with for the first time at the very same rally. Then you are approached by Arisha and Anthony who identify themselves "with the NOM Tour Tracker". I think it's fair to say that is less than honest.

I will at least give them credit for eventually admitting who they were with after someone would press for more information - and there were some who did that from time to time. It would have been nice if they just said "Hi, we're from the Courage Campaign out of California and we'd like to interview you," or something like that.

Talking about questions. Arisha loves to and is good at asking questions and can hold her own in a conversation. I've talked with her many times throughout the tour and although we disagree on this issue we've always been nice to each other. Now, I can't tell you what they say behind my back, maybe nothing, but generally speaking, they were respectful throughout the tour. So this is not an attack on Arisha or Anthony.

But like I said, Arisha likes to ask questions and grill Brian daily with what essentially amounts to the same conversation everyday. Arisha tries to get Brian to say certain things their readers want Brian to say in order to catch him in some kind of a contradiction or something like that and Brian gives his answers.

Now these answers are never satisfying to Arisha because she basically fails each time to get Brian to say something she could use against him.

NOM Tour Tracker "Arisha" from California ignores
woman speaking to her about God.

That's why the majority of the interviews with Brian haven't been posted on their site. That's because the dialog between Brian and Arisha just helps our side and hurts theirs.

But the point of this is that Arisha doesn't seem to like it when the camera is on her or when she is being asked questions.

I happened to be in the right place at the right time to catch this shot of Arisha making a beeline for any exit she could when some woman, supporting our marriage rally, was speaking with Arisha.
Arisha wanted nothing of it.

However, to her credit, she did entertain an hour-long conversation with me after the Charleston, WV rally where, not to her credit, she said she wouldn't oppose the legalization of polygamy because it wouldn't personally affect her marriage.

She also didn't oppose the idea, hypothetically speaking, if her future child wanted to marry a man and a woman. This would be a triad marriage between three people. Arisha said she'd want to talk with said child and see where his or her heart was.

This came up when I asked her, on camera, if she believes it is possible to use the same legal argument she uses now for the legalization of same-sex marriage for the legalization of polygamy or other alternative forms of marriage.

So long story short, this woman, who represents the Courage Campaign, a gay-rights organization out of California, is on record not necessarily opposing polygamy or triad marriages. To be fair she did say that she wouldn't personally engage in such activities.

Speaking about the Courage Campaign, I had the opportunity to meet it's chair today, Richard Jacobs. Apparently, he flew out from California for one last shot to put Brian on the spot. I guess they were getting frustrated with the lack of fodder Arisha was providing.

Richard Jacobs, Courage Campaign debates
Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage.

Courage Campaign really needed to get Brian on the record saying something crazy or off-message so they replaced Arisha with the head-honcho.

As you can see, Arisha is in the background, having been relieved by her boss, and Anthony is filming.

He too, was unsuccessful.

You see, perhaps if our cause was actually centered around the hate and bigotry our opponents say it is, they'd be able to get us to say radical and hateful and bigoted things.

But when you're not talking to a radical or hateful or bigoted person, you're probably not going to hear them say hateful or bigoted things!

Such is the case when speaking with Brian Brown or anyone who supports marriage between a man and a woman including myself.

On another note, I spoke with Mr. Jacobs and he's a nice guy. We have something in common: Russia. We've both lived in Russia for some period of time and it was cool to exchange a few lines with each other in Russia. It's too bad that he has forgotten much of the language - it would have been fun to speak in Russian again.

It even took me a second and a few lines to get back into that phase. Switching to Russian after speaking only English for a few months takes a few seconds. Nice to meet you, Rick. You should have come to our other stops, too.

Same-sex Marriage Returns to California... soon.

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:25:00 +0000

Today we learned that Judge Vaughn Walker, who unilaterally overtured millions of votes last week by striking down California's voter-approved Proposition 8, denied the motion to stay his decision while the appeals process takes its course.

However, that doesn't mean that same-sex couples have already started marrying today, although thousands of same-sex couples lined up around the state in anticipation of making August 12, 2010 their wedding anniversary date. From the Judge's decision on the matter of the stay:

"That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8." - Judge Walker's Final Stay Order of August 12, 2010

So what that means, assuming that city halls and courthouses across the state close at 5 PM as most government offices tend to do, is that same-sex couples will not be able to marry until the morning of August 19th. That is essentially an extention of the Judge's original temporary stay by one week.

Now it hasn't been unheard of to see some city halls opening their doors early in order to permit same-sex couples to marry sooner. It wouldn't be a big surprise if some city halls decided to stay open into the evening or night on August 18th in order to allow same-sex couples to marry immediately once the judgement becomes official that Proposition 8 can no longer be enforced.

Proponents of Proposition 8 have already filed their appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Most importantly, the extention of the temporary stay by another week will perhaps give the legal team defending Proposition 8 the time they need to request and possibly recieve an injunction order from the Appeals Court that would effectively maintain the legality of Proposition 8 until said Appeals Court could issue a decision.

Either way, at this point same-sex couples are one week away from being able to marry each other but we will monitor the situation and provide updates whenever possible.

Should same-sex marriage resume in California, in the event that the Court of Appeals does not issue an injuction, then may we only wish that any same-sex marriages that do take place there be successful and bring happiness to our homosexual friends.

UPDATE: (11:25 PM August 16, 2010)

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction against Judge Walker's ruling, effectively staying his ruling throughout the appeals process. This means that same-sex marriages will not be taking place in California anytime soon, although many city and county government offices were preparing to stay open late to perform such marriages.

The order itself can be found and read here.

Halloween comes early to Orlando

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:16:00 +0000

If you were in Winter Park on Sunday, you might have had an early glimpse at Halloween. The National Organization for Marriage held a "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally at the First Christian Church of Winter Park, a suburb of Orlando, FL and those who showed up to protest our rally let it all out in the strangest protest of the Summer for Marriage Tour yet.

This man put it all on but forgot the trick-or-treat bag. He stood there holding his sign and when he noticed I was taking his picture, he smiled and waved. Then he encouraged everyone to "smile for the NOM camera".

Few of them did but he was not alone. There were many protesters assembled in front of the church dressed in a variety of costumes, many of which were a size or two too small. Not to mention the face paint - the thick white face paint. I was confused if they were going for the "V for Vendetta" look, the "Internet Troll" look or if they just wanted to plaster on the make up. Either way their appearance did not help.

Who can look at a crowd of people holding signs and yelling about equality when they are dressed like that? Who is going to take them seriously? The mere costume itself draws people's attention away from their signs and off their message.

They weren't reading their signs or listening to their calls for 'equality', they were looking at their costumes and probably laughing at them. It doesn't bother me, though. If they want to dress like that it just helps the effort to protect marriage. Especially with those people still on the fence or undecided or apethetic people. Honestly, which side would you stand on?

And let's not brush this man aside as a fringe element of that protest. He was not alone. He was joined by a handful of other men dressed in the very same way. The dress, the face paint, the make up, the combat boots, the wedding veil, the biker gloves.

Here is another man dressed in another dress. This time it's pink and for extra fun and mockery, he's wearing a cross around his neck and black elbow-length gloves. Oh, and a purse and the especially large ornament on his finger he must have borrowed from Lady Gaga.

Now don't take this the wrong way. This has nothing to do with teasing these men or saying they can't dress however they want. I do want to point out that if you want to be taken seriously in the public square you should take a look at how you present yourself.

I would really like to know what the purpose of attending their protest dressed in this fashion was. I don't see any reason to do it. Sure, perhaps they like to wear women's clothing but that doesn't have anything to do with the debate over same-sex marriage and it didn't have anything to do with why we went to Winter Park yesterday.

Although there were more men dressed in dresses and white face paint that I could count with one hand, they were not the only group of protesters who came 'dresssed for the occasion'. These next two men dressed in a way that could only be attributed to their blantant will to mock Christianity.

Don't forget the setting. The First Christian Church of Winter Park. At least the men above may be dressed in a way that represents the sex they consider themselves to be. It was inappropriate and unnecessary for the event but what these two men did was just an attempt to show disrespect and disdain for the church.

I don't think anyone can argue that what these two wore had anything to do with same-sex marriage, sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity or anything close to it. It was a real display of mockery - or they just turned out early for trick-or-treat.

So I assume they are trying to pose as angels as they stand in front of the church.

However, they didn't stop at that.

One of them actually took to the center of the road and stood in the middle of traffic. What was the point? What did they seek to achieve?

Why would they come to a protest, supposedly organized to push for their 'equal' rights and then mock the religious beliefs of not only those who were in attendance at our rally inside but the millions of Christians across the Nation?

Yes they did seem to be attracted to the middle of the road. The 'angel' you see above wasn't the only one to take to the street to greet the drivers passing by at 30 mph.

This second man almost tripped over himself as he ran across the street and in front of oncoming traffic sideways.

Not only did he not look both ways before he crossed like I'm sure his mother taught him to as a child, but he purposely jumped out in front of moving traffic.

It's not setting a good example for the kids that were at their protest. One of which they had yelling their twisted chants and holding thier signs.

"They're lost," one of our supporters told me as he stood nearby the church holding one of our "One Man, One Woman" marriage signs. He told me he would pray that they could find Jesus.

The marriage rally was held inside due to poor weather conditions.

Alveda King clarifies meaning of Civil Rights at rally

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 03:06:00 +0000

Dr. Alveda King speaks at the "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally
in Atlanta, Georgia on August 7, 2010 at the State Capitol.

After a long drive from Saint Louis, MO and a few hours sleep we were right back at it today in Atlanta, GA standing up for what is right and for what is best for our society and our children and our future.

This time we were standing up with Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the Director of African American Outreach of Priests for Life.

The significance of having the opportunity to work with Dr. Alveda King today is clear. Our opponents have been grasping onto - in fact hijacking the Civil Rights Movement for the advancement of their own agenda. Today we were able to set the record straight about civil rights is all about - at least the kind of civil rights her uncle fought and died for - and that is what Dr. Alveda King sought to do today by joining us in defense of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

In an interview I held with her after the rally, Alveda taked about her beliefs on this matter.

Question 1: Do you think we should separate our faith from our government?
Reasoning: Our opponents repeatively claim that the principle of separation of church and state demand that we keep our private faith beliefs out of the public square.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: Well, I'm always looking for a unity of the faith and that's the people coming together in faith. Government can not govern our hearts and so when it comes to an issue of faith that's going to be we the people rising up in faith doing what we know in our hearts is right.

The government can not mandate that, the government really can not control that and so the government should not keep people from voting.

Question 2: We have heard some comparisons between the legalization of same-sex marriage and the legalization of interracial marriages. Do you think there is a legitimate comparison between the two?

A protester in Atlanta holds a
sign that says "People of different
colors couldn't marry until 1967"
which is a reference to the
Loving v. Virginia case.

Reasoning: Our opponents constantly cite the Loving v. Virginia case that struck down bans on interracial marriages as reasoning to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. They think they are one in the same.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: There is one race on the planet and that's the human race and of one blood everybody was made. And so to tell two people that they can't marry because of differences in skin color is against the foundational understanding that is in our hearts that we're one race.

So any man of any complexion can marry any woman of any complexion and that lines up with the Bible. Now, the civil rights of all human beings, and the rights to human dignity also can be found in the Bible and the Biblical principles.

Now the issue of two men marrying or two women marrying of course in direct opposition to what's there. And so therefore, it's not a civil right... when you consider the question of sexuality, the guidelines are clear.

They are inherently made within us that two men or two women can not procreate. So the civil rights question would follow closely to the natural laws that are in the Bible and there are no natural laws that say that two men or two woman can procreate and therefore they should not marry.

Question 3: Some of our opponents say that defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman is really an act of hatred towards homosexuals. What do you think about that?
Reasoning: Our opponents think that we hate them and that our cause is centered around a mutual hatred of homosexuals.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: Many times a lack of understanding causes us to feel as though someone hates us. And so we love everybody. Everyone that God created is deserving of love. Love and sexuality are two different things.

And so the discussion comes down to - the debate comes up that you're going to be mad with me because I'm going to have sex... however I want to have sex. We're not going to be mad with anybody but we must point out that sexuality has a purpose - that purpose is procreation and procreation occurs when there is sex between a man and a woman.

One man's sperm and one woman's egg come together to make a baby and so that is the process that we are upholding and that is the process that is protected by marriage between one man and one woman.

Question 4: How do you feel about our opponents using the Civil Rights Movement for the advancement of their own cause?
Reasoning: Advocates of same-sex marriage often quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and use the Civil Rights Movement he led and died for as a foundation of the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage.

DR. ALVEDA KING'S ANSWER: I believe that all human beings should get a full understanding of what the meaning of civil rights is. Civil rights means human rights. And that means dignity from conception until natural death.

And so if we are fighting for human dignity and human rights then our own personal desires and preferences and doing what we want does not measure into that equation. And so people who disagree with the principles and the standards of Natural Law which can also be called Bible Law - that's when you get into the differences and the discussion.

And so I believe that those who feel as though they are hated or that we are against them should reexamine their own hearts and the basis of Natural Law and what they will find in us and in those principles is the love of God and love will not fail anybody.

*NOTE: A video of this interview will be available soon and a link will be added here in order to view it.

It was a great honor to meet Dr. Alveda King and it was great to stand beside her in our mutual struggle.

Vernessa Mitchell

Angelica Tucker

After Dr. King's comments, we had a special show for Atlanta in store. Two soloists came with Alveda and performed for us. They really did a great job and their songs really made our stop in Atlanta special.

The singer to the right, Angelica Tucker, provided an emotionally charged performance singing "Rebuild", a song she wrote herself.

The singer to the left, Vernessa Mitchell, followed Angelica and put on a great performance singing "Unity", a song which drew the attention and the applause of our opponents. Vernessa was an honored performer at the Inaugural Ball for President Clinton.

It was nice to find something in common with the counter-protesters, Brian Brown joked at the podium.

It was indeed humorous seeing our opponents dancing and singing to the performers at our rally. It really lightened things up today and that is something that we should be encouraging to happen between our two sides more often.

We've seen so much hate from our opponents throughout the course of the marriage tour alone from Albany to Providence to Madison. To see our opponents stnad with us in appreciation of art and music was a nice breath of fresh air. I mean, look at them.

Protesters dance, sing and hold hands during performance of Vernessa Mitchell,
a supporter of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Iowa leg of Summer for Marriage Tour wraps up

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:19:00 +0000

Today we held our second and final rally in the Hawkeye State in Sioux City, IA near Iowa's border with Nebraska and South Dakota. Iowa is a particularly important part of our marriage tour given the relevancy of the issue here.

Last spring, a handful of non-elected justices legalized same-sex marriage through judicial activism. Well, this year three of those justices are on the ballot in November and the people will have the opportunity to retain them or to vote them out. The message we have been pushing in Iowa this week has been to vote them out.

"One Man, One Woman" marriage rally
Sioux City, IA (August 3, 2010)

Our rally today in Sioux City attracted about 80 people. Our opponents claim that only 56 showed up but that of course, is because they need to make it sound like there were more people at their same-sex 'marriage' rally they held than who showed up to support authentic marriage between a man and a woman.

They can take a picture from forty feet away and count the heads they see. Sure from that point of view and in a two-dimensional photo, there very well may be only 56 heads visible. But said photo lacks important aspects such as depth which is why their head count of 56 is about 25 heads short.

There's no way one photo from one vantage point is going to show each person standing in a group! It's a very simple concept yet our opponents have made this mistake time and time again - but the point is that it actually isn't a mistake.

They are doing this on purpose because if NOM appears to have high turnouts or at the very least turnouts that are greater than their counter protests, then they lose.

This is why time and time again we see their estimates of our turnouts to be lower than media reports and more importantly, lower than their counter-protest turnout. The first thing they posted today was about turnout focusing on 56 NOM supporters and a convienently slightly higher 64 same-sex marriage supporters.

Volunteers signing up to join us in our effort to
protect marriage across the country.

Regardless of their tactics, we've continued our stride to sign up 2 million Americans who stand with us for traditional marriage by signing up a bunch of new supporters today.

As Brian has been reporting, we've got 750 thousand now and we need two million and one of the reasons we are doing this Summer for Marriage Tour is to get out there and reach out to rational American citizens who are ready to stand up with us for marriage between a man and a woman.

Rational Americans with their moral compasses properly calibrated like these people you see are the ones who have in the past and who are going to protect marriage in the future. The National Organization for Marriage is working to organize and activate these people.

This woman was excited to sign up and wanted
to say a few things so we interviewed her on camera.

Challenge: Find these two women signing up to join the NOM team in the picture of the rally above.

If you can't find both of them, then you must admit that no picture (unless taken from above) is going to show every person assembled in a group at a rally which then by default tells you that the tally our opponents made by counting heads in a taken in a picture from forty feet away must be inaccurate.

What about this woman in the purple shirt? Can you find here in the first picture in this article? If not, does that mean that she wasn't there?

Again, we saw an exceptionally low turnout of counter protesters at our rally today. In fact, so low were their numbers I was able to count all of them with one hand.

This is because generally speaking, the people of Iowa do not support same-sex marriage and believe in authentic marriage between a man and a woman.

Our stalkers from California were also there milling around and "radioing in" to their colleagues out in California. Much to my surprise, they didn't go for another one-on-two exclusive interview with Brian Brown again.

They must have gotten tired of having the same conversation everyday. Especially since the conversation doesn't go quite the way they stay up all night planning it on their blogs.

Standing up for Marriage Equality

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:17:00 +0000

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Everyday we hear cries from our opponents that they just want marriage equality. Well, marriage equality is something we can all stand up for. It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, black or white. Marriage is an equal right and let me tell you why.

The strategy our opponents take in this debate is to paint those of us who support marriage between a man and a woman as bigots, as haters, and those who support a policy of discrimination. This is not the case.

Of course there are extremists on our side as there are extremists on our opponents side. People who advocate for the killing of homosexuals or any hatred of anyone is an extremist and I don't stand with them and in this case I will speak for NOM when I say that they don't stand with them, either.

I believe both sides of this issue can and must stand against hate speech whether it comes from our side or their side. The problem with that is, our opponents often consider every word we utter to be hate speech. That's hyperbolic at best but has been a somewhat effective strategy within their circle of supporters. There's a lot of preaching to the choir going on over there.

A two-inch hole in the wheel
was punctured while in New Jersey

Unfortunately, our opponents have not had the courage to stand up and repudiate the kind of hatred we witnessed this summer in New Jersey, when one of their supporters punctured a tire on the NOM RV or in Albany when they intimidated a mother and her three small children or in Providence when they actually stormed the podium.

Angry homosexual activists
stormed the podium and screamed
in the face of our speakers.
The face of tolerance.

Anyway, I would like to get back to the issue of marriage equality, which I support. The problem is our opponents have taken on a twisted and tainted idea of what marriage equality is.

Let me demonstrate what marriage equality exactly is all about.

Marriage equality means that everyone is subject to the same marriage laws as everyone else. Contrary to what our opponents believe, this is exactly the case in this country. There are four basic rules everyone must follow in order to get married.

The first rule, and there's really no specific order, but for the sake of listing them, rule number one says that you can't marry someone under the age of 18 without parental consent. So this basically means marry an adult.

Rule two says that you can only marry someone who is not already married. So this basically means no polygamy. Fair enough, right? I think so far everyone is in agreement. Do not marry children and do not marry people who are already married.

Moving onto rule number three. Again, we will have basically universal agreement here. Do not marry someone in your immediate family. So, in other words, no incestual marriages.

These three rules exist for the sake of society and the health of the family. Rule number four, which says that you must marry someone of the opposite sex also exists for the very same reasons!

Anyone who follows these basic rules can get married and that is the kind of marriage equality that I believe in. It is equal application of the law regardless of race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Everyone has to follow the same rules, pay the same application fees, wait the same waiting periods and then get married. That is marriage equality!

An application for a marriage license from Hawaii.

So now I would like to examine an application to marry from the State of Hawaii.

I am using Hawaii here simply because it is the first one I came across and I'm certain it is basically identical to the application for a marriage license you come across in other states.

So if you look at the application, you will see a place on the form that determines the eligibility of the couple to marry with respect to the rules I laid out above. The couple must demonstrate they are adults, that they have different parents, that they are single (may need to show proof of the dissolution of previous marriage) and that there is one man and one woman.

These are the factors at play for the issuance of a marriage license! What that means is that anyone who mets these basic eligibity requirements can get the marriage license. Notice, you don't see any questions on the application about sexual orientation. You don't see any questions on the form that could in anyway provide the clerk with the information about he or she would need to discriminate against gays or lesbians.

How can you discriminate against someone because they are gay or lesbian when you don't know because you never asked and they never had to inform you of which way they swing?

Former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey

Don't think it can happen? Here's a picture of a gay man who was able to follow the rules and who did marry in accordance with the laws that are equally applied to everyone.

His name is Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey and he is a homosexual.

His sexual infidelity eventually led to divorce as sexual infidelity leads to many divorces across the Nation but the fact remains that this homosexual man was permitted to marry because he followed the same laws everyone else follows every day.

Marriage equality.

This is where the deception of our opponents becomes clear. They use bumper-sticker slogans to paint a picture that people like myself and organizations like the National Organization for Marriage want to stop gays and lesbians from marrying altogether!

Yes, effective propaganda tool but completely untrue and outright deceptive. People like myself who believe in marriage between a man and a woman do not hold grudges against gays or lesbians personally. Contrary to their beliefs, it isn't all about them afterall. It's about the meaning and of marriage and the purpose of marriage.

The problem is our opponents are mixing up their personal purposes for getting married with the actual purpose of marriage. Their purposes for getting married are about commitment to their partner, about love for their partner, etc. Noble.

Unfortunately, commitment and love are not the purposes of marriage itself. Sure, people get married because they love each other but it's not the purpose of marriage The purpose of marriage is about bringing the two sexes together to create a family and bring about the next generation.

People misuse things all the time. Take knives for example. The purpose of a knife is to cut food, not to kill people. Yet, people use knives all the time to stab people. The purpose of a knife and a person's purpose for using the knife are often completely separate.

Take a look at the slogan used by those who support the second amendment: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The reasons people use guns do not always match up to the reasons guns exist.

This is something two people of the same sex are incapable of doing no matter how you look at it. So I'd like to emphasize that the effort to protect marriage between a man and a woman is not about hatred of gays or lesbians, it's not about discrimination or trying to stop gays and lesbians from marrying altogether. It's about preserving the meaning of marriage as the central core bedrock of our society.

It is our opponents who are working to change things, to redefine things. As one of our opponents recently said in Madison "We are redefining marriage"... my question is this: If you are redefining marriage, then that must mean that you are taking something old and creating something new.

Then that means the goal is not just removing discriminatory practices from marriage as our opponents would have you believe.

Let us thank the millions in this country who have their moral compasses properly calibrated who are standing up against this radical redefinition of our cultural (and religious) beliefs and liberties.

Update from the road: Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:58:00 +0000

So now I am writing from western Iowa. We have basically arrived in Sioux City, but I don't know off hand what highway it is. I know that we were on the 80W.

We are going to Sioux City because we are holding a rally there on Tuesday to stand up for geniune marriage between a man and a woman. I say geniune, and I've made this point before, because a piece of paper doesn't make you married. A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married couples but it doesn't make you married.

I say this because of this picture taken by one of our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker.

It's a sign held by one of our opponents today in Des Moines (we held a good rally there earlier today at th State Capital) was holding a sign that said she was married to her parner for 9 months and was thanking the State of Iowa for that.

These people are not married.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and taking something and molding it into the shape of marriage and then giving it the name of marriage doesn't make it marriage! It is merely a mockery of marriage and that is what these so-called "same-sex marriages" amount to.

Now this couple may very well be wonderful people. They may be great people individually and according to some, they may even make a cute couple. It's not about that. I am not attacking them individually or personally but I am attacking the misunderstanding these women share about marriage. And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment.

Today's rally was quite good. It wasn't our largest turnout but that could be understood taking into consideration the heat. It was really hot. I drank two bottles of water within that hour rally and I hardly ever drink water at all. We actually had to set up our stage area closer to trees because everyone wanted to stand or sit in the shade. So ten minutes before we were supposed to start, Brian came over to us and asked us to relocate everything.

So we rushed and packed everything up and carried it down another flight of stairs and set the whole stage, speakers, sound equipment right there by the water fountain in front of the State Capital.

We were ultimately able to start on time but that just demonstrates how hot it actually was today. As you can see, our 150+ supporters gathered in the shade to escape the hot glaring sunshine.

Our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker love to downplay the turnout we have at our rallies. The last thing they want is for the public to see a strong turnout of Americans who support marriage between a man and a woman only.

That is why they have been constantly claiming that our turnouts have been very low. Now this picture shows about fifty people but it is taken from within the crowd. A conservative estimate would be 150 yet the stalkers from Califrornia claim we had less than 90. They do this so that they can (and they have) claim that the counter-protesters who show up to interfere with the rally "outnumber" our supporters.

Now I don't remember the last time I used the word "outnumber". Really, it isn't a very common word but our stalkers from California have got the word "outnumber" or a variation of it 5 times on their homepage. For them, it is imperative that they paint a picture that those who support marriage between a man and a woman are a minority, that we're on the wrong side history.

Then again, maybe they were too busy interviewing Brian Brown (again) to really get a good headcount.

Honestly speaking, I didn't see them walking around our crowd counting heads so perhaps their estimate is the number of people they were able to count from a particular angle but as you can see in photo, that crowd was pretty deep.

You've got to give credit to Brian for dealing with these people who want to have the same conversation everyday.

Everytime they have approached him he has been more than willing to take 10+ minutes and grant them exclusive interview after exclusive interview when we all know they leave the rally and hold a pow wow to decide how they can plaster the interview on their website and use it against Brian.

So overall, we had another successful rally in Des Moines and signed up more supporters. Each stop we make we sign up more and more all in our effort to sign up 2 million Americans from across the Nation who support marriage between a man and a woman only.

Once we've reached that goal (we've got 750k now), we'll have the political power and foundation to effect the change we want to see in places like Iowa and to prevent changes we want to avoid in places like California in 2012 when the homosexual activists are planning to go after the Golden State again.

UPDATE: (00:20 August 2, 2010)
A recently posted article from KCCI News out of Des Moines says the rally "drew more than 100 people to the Iowa State Capitol to voice support for traditional marriage." Here is the full story.

Great crowd rallies in Saint Cloud

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:33:00 +0000

Today we held another very successful and upbeat rally in Saint Cloud, Minnesota.

It was my first time this far north into Minnesota and it was great to have the opportunity to be there, to meet the people and to speak with them about why they need to stand up for marriage.

I had come to Minnesota a few years back but stayed in the Minneapolis area, visited the Mall of America and had dinner at a Russian restaurant in Saint Paul.

Anyway, the message was particularly important for the people of Minnesota because activists pushing the homosexual agenda have opened multiple fronts in the legislative branch, are working hard to elect a sympathetic governor this year and they are trying to legalize same-sex marriage through the judicary as well.

That is why our message today focused on educating the public about the imminent threat that marriage is facing here.

Unlike some other states, the threat is imminent here and the elections this November may very well be the most important elections for the state of Minnesota in terms of protecting things like marriage, life and family. That is the message Chuck Darrel of the Minnesota Family Council delivered to our rally of over two hundred.

Chuck did a great job of demonstrating the urgency of the issue and of motiviating the crowd to take action. Chuck was also with us in Saint Paul yesterday in front of the Minnesota State Capitol but I still need to confirm whether or not he will be with us tomorrow in Rochester, MN. I will update on that later on.

Like I mentioned, we had at least two hundred attendees today and the best part is that they were an active crowd. You could sense that they were engaged and excited to be there and I know that when they left our rally today they were going to go home and spread the word. I remember one man who I was standing next to for a period of time who wanted to know how he could organize a GOTV effort within his church, as one of our speakers suggested to the crowd as a way of taking action.

Luckily for him, one of our supporters was Minnesota State Representative Steve Gottwalt, who represents MN District 15A in the State House.

He came to our rally today, wore our marriage sticker and explained to the man how he could set up a group to get out the vote. It was great to meet Mr. Gottwalt.

So again we signed up a bunch of new supporters, handed out hundreds of stickers, buttons and pens. We also had bumper stickers this time - one with the NOM logo alone and the other with the NOM logo and "National Organization for Marriage" written under it.

As for the protesters, there were enough to count on one hand and they stayed closer to the street, held and few signs and kept to themselves. They weren't an issue.

Our stalkers from California were lurking around our crowd, though. They too basically kept to themselves. One of them sat on the grass typing away at her computer and the other had his nose in his camera for the majority of the rally.

I am encouraged. We've had two rallies without a disrespectful group of protesters. It's off to Rochester.

Great marriage rally today in Saint Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:19:00 +0000

Today was a beautiful day in Saint Paul.

First, the weather couldn't have been better for an outdoor rally.

Second, about two hundred others from all around Minnesota must have agreed with me as they made their way out to the Minnesota State Capitol to stand with me and the National Organization for Marriage for our "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally which kicked-off shortly after noon today.

We had a great bunch of speakers today including NOM's President Brian Brown, Chuck Darrel of the Minnesota Family Policy Council, Pastor Brad Brandon of KKMS Radio, Senior Pastor Bob Battle of the Berean Church of God in Christ, and Father Michael Becker, representing the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Today we had some protesters who had arrived early but all in all they were quiet and respectful. There were exceptions, though.

One loner silently walked around our rally with her rainbow flag. She didn't seem to be a part of the official counter protest.

Like I said, she didn't say a word but did tip her hat to us a few times towards the end of the rally. She was a non-issue.

We also had in attendance two people I was particularly pleased to meet today and that is Minnesota State Senator Warren Limmer, who represents District 32 in the Minnesota State Senate and Tom Prichard, the President of the Minnesota Family Policy Council.

It was a pleasure meeting Senator Limmer today because he is a huge supporter of one man, one woman marriage and has authored legislation that would amend Minnesota's state constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman.

To the right is a picture of Senator Limmer standing with the President of the Minnesota Family Policy Council, Tom Prichard. Warren is on the right, Tom on the left. Mr. Prichard has led the struggle against same-sex marriage in Minnesota and we owe him our thanks as well.

Towards the end of our rally, we did come across more of what we've unfortunately become accustomed to seeing throughout the Summer for Marriage Tour - disrespect and intolerence from those who demand just that from us.

Granted today's protesters, including the ones I am pointing out here were much more in control of themselves, unlike what we have seen in Madison, Providence and Albany.

However, it isn't appropriate for the protesters to chalk up our stage area with foul language. There were small kids in the front row of that rally. Yet, that didn't stop one of the protesters.

Other messages included "We Recruit" as well as "Gay" with an arrow pointing to the NOM podium, which was written while Brian Brown was addressing the crowd.

The protester who went around writing this stuff all over was quick and drew a bit of attention to herself. It was actually funny because she drew the attention of the local media and they started following her around trying to get a shot of what she was doing.

She then disappeared into the crowd and wasn't seen from again.

And that reminds me of our stalkers from California who have been following us around, sometimes getting up real close and personal, trying to film Brian Brown holding private conversations with his family, his children.
They've peered over his shoulder as he used his Blackberry, stuff like that. Well, we noticed that since they were rightfully removed from the rally site in Annapolis for doing all of the above (not for documenting the rally as they claim), they obtained press passes which they've been wearing on their shirts since then.

So why when I wanted to look at their press passes today, they did everything they could to turn them around so I couldn't see them?

Their videographer even went so far as to turn around the press pass of one of his colleagues before I could get a glimpse of it.

So let's look at what happened step by step.

First, as you can see in photograph one, the press pass is visible and right-side-up. He doesn't realize I am there and is continuing to record Brian for the umpteeth minute of his umpteenth interview since the beginning of the Summer for Marriage Tour.

Then, the videographer notices I am taking an interest in his press pass and in step two he blocks my view with his hand. Hm, that's interesting. Maybe he had a bad hair day or something and didn't want me to see his photo.

Now, at the end of the process, as photograph three shows, the press pass is turned around and not visible. What is the secret? What are our friends from the NOM Tour Tracker Blog trying to hide? What's the purpose of wearing press passes if you turn them around when someone wants to see them?

But it goes a little further than that and it wasn't about his photo. When I noticed he didn't want to let me look at his press pass, I turned to his colleague, whose name I didn't catch because... (try to guess).... the videographer flipped that one over too!

At that point the three of them were wearing flipped-over press passes and were stubbornly opposed to anyone actually looking at anything more than the big "PRESS" headline on it. What's the big secret?

Overall, we had a great rally and signed up a great number of new supporters, gave out hundreds of pens, stickers and our T-shirts were quite popular. The event did catch the attention of a handful of local media, which I mentioned earlier, so we had a pretty successful day.

Update from the road: Illinois

noreply@blogger.com (Louis J. Marinelli) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:52:00 +0000

I don't spend my entire day working on blogs like some people do but I do think this blog has just implemented a nice new aspect to it which will improve the reader's ability to comment on my posts. The down side is that when I added the widget, I lost all the old comments from the previous posts.

Maybe I didn't do it exactly right but I read somewhere online that you could add disqus to the blogger and have it include the previous posts. Anyway, what's done is done and that's it.

So at the moment we are driving to Madison, Wisconsin I don't quite know exactly where we are but we are in the general vacinity of Chicago. Contrary to the beliefs of many of our opponents, we are not taking a detour off the marriage tour to stop in South Bend, IN as our stalkers from California and the NOM Tour Tracker claim.

I don't know who their "source on the ground" is but he or she doesn't seem quite reliable. He or she also predicted that the Providence, RI rally was going to be cancelled and that we would blame the weather for that. We went to Providence. We held our rally. Our opponents made fools out of themselves.

And so we are long past South Bend, Indiana.

OK, so we are actually at a toll booth right now so I can see that we are at least in Illinois, as I suspected. So that means we'll be setting our clocks back an hour. We'll be meeting up with Brian Brown and his family, which are returning to the tour with us in Madison.

The Brown family had some business to tend to out west and so they stepped off the tour for a few stops but Madison will be great because we will have both Brian and Maggie as speakers. It should be a great rally as have been all the rallies that we have held so far. We've signed up hundreds of people from around the country who want to be active in the struggle against the redefinition of marriage.

We want to get 2 million people signed up from all over the country. So far we've got a little over 700,000 people from every corner of this country who support our mission and want to be involved. So I think we've made great progress towards our goal and this summer marriage tour is helping that very mission.

We're signing up supporters in the most important places in the country where marriage is under attack and the people's elected representatives are working to redefine marriage. We've been to Maryland, which may gay rights activists claim is their next major target. Of course we've been to New York and New Jersey where we won huge battles against same-sex marriage last year in December. We kicked-off our marriage tour in Maine, where we won - and won big - in November, 2009.

Now, like I said, we're going to Wisconsin -a state which only 4 years ago voted by an overwhelming supermajority to ban same-sex marriage in their state. It was also in Wisconsin earlier this month that the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state's constitiional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman.

We're going to Iowa, where we are working to let the people vote. We'll be going to DC to wrap up our tour for this very same reason and let me assure all of you that the people of DC will have their say and when they do, the integrity of marriage will be restored with the repeal of same-sex marriage in our Nation's Capital.

Today we had a great rally in Indianapolis. I'll post about this later on my blog because I'm having computer issues getting the pictures from the camera's memory card to my laptop. Don't worry, we've got some interesting information about what happened in Indianapolis that you won't hear from our opponents because they probably wish you didn't know about it.