I don’t mean to dilute Jim Burroway’s important question, but I thought I would take this opportunity to ask you a few more questions.

You are obviously the most famous celebrity in the anti-marriage movement, so I assume you must have superlative credentials on all aspects of marriage. So, why were you not called to testify in the Prop-8 trial? Is it possible that you refused to testify because you knew your testimony could not withstand cross-examination? Did you worry that your main credential, a BA degree in Religious Studies from Yale, would expose you as being anti-facts. Isn’t it true that an embarrassing performance in the trial might have damaged your ability to continue persuading gullible people to adopt your anti-marriage views?

Since the name of your group is the National Organization for Marriage, do you have any proposals for actually creating better marriages? Why does it seem that NOM’s only proposal is to prevent marriages among people they don’t like? Wouldn’t it be more honest to change the name of NOM to Sanctimonious Crusaders Against Marriage (SCAM)?

I must give you some credit for pulling off one amazing feat, but I realize you’ve had years of practice: How do you manage to celebrate the sanctity of traditional marriage at all those tour venues without anyone questioning you about your invisible Hindu husband, Raman Srivastav, and the fact that you don’t use his surname? Since he’s been invisible for so long, don’t you think it’s about time for Raman’s picture to be put on a traditional milk carton?

Actually, I just want to know if Maggie Gallagher agrees with Leviticus.

Brian Brown addressed this in his Send Money letter:

The group “Freedom to Marry” issued their own statement yesterday, but they apparently forgot to coordinate their message of the day with HRC. Instead of accusing us of “made up stories of harassment” this group showed a repulsive picture of someone whose sign featured a noose, implying that homosexuals should be put to death. They went on to “demand” that NOM repudiate this “incitement to violence.” We’d treat this call seriously if it weren’t such a contrived stunt.

First of all, NOM has already repudiated this display of intolerance — and did so on the spot (not through a press release). We demanded this individual to take down his sign, because it was inconsistent with NOM’s aims, methods, and message: We come together in love to support marriage as one man and one woman.

Second, at every rally we make it clear that our fight is not with gay Americans, it is with a bad idea. The Lord teaches us that we are to love all His children. We approach the issue of marriage from the perspective of love. You can watch video of NOM’s Chair, Maggie Gallagher, making this point here.

I’ve been tweeting at both NOM and Louis Marinelli with a link to the image and a request for a comment for four days. I’ve also tried to link to the image on NOM’s blog, but each comment with a link to the picture has been censored and not posted.