Comments on: NOM Fleeces Its Followers with Falsehoods (again)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:13:30 +0000

Hate to say it, but I might have to defend NOM, here. Narrowly, at least. Do we know for certain SCOTUS won’t “broaden” the ruling that the 9th narrowed and rule all gay marriage bans unconstitutional? Are they legally prevented from doing so, now?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:06:52 +0000

The Box of Rocks wants to clarify that it is not a political consultant for Brian Brown.

By: occono

occono — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:21:10 +0000

Hmm, so SCOTUS couldn’t possibly (though I wouldn’t expect them to) further the scope of the ruling to the whole nation? I mean, wasn’t Citizens United a case about a very narrow legality that got stretched to “Corporate Personhood”?

By: DN

DN — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:28 +0000

I like your line about malice and stupidity. In that vein, I would say the entire post can be explained with, “never mistake noble intentions for a basic desire to earn a tidy profit.”

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:49:01 +0000

Well, they actually might be seeing things from different angles. Let me explain:

This desicion will effectively prevent them from putting a referendun on the ballot in Washington, should the marriage equality bill pass there and it is signed into law by the governor.

This desicion could also have implications in NY and NH (If I am correct in the last case) given how they (NOM) are in the process of bullying the legislatures into takinng those rights away. This could mean that there is a presedent in the other side of the country that they are not allowed to 1. put this kind of measure to a popular vote and (potentially) 2. prevent a legislature to legislate away rights that have already been granted to a class of people just because they had a change of hearts.

If I was maggie or Brian, I would have a distinc smell hanging around me and i would be on my 3rd change of undies for the day. Eventhough this desicion is very narow in its scope, it can set presedent for anyone who says “If you give these rights to them gays we are going to force a ballot measure.”

I would welcome the oppinion of anyone better prepared to discuss matters of law and its implications.

By: steveinmi

steveinmi — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:46:39 +0000

Aw…. My comment is awaiting moderation.

Rev. Steve Radant
Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
(apologies in advance if this is a duplicate post)

I’ve read all 133 pages of today’s ruling. The court ruled in the narrowest possible terms, almost guaranteeing that today’s ruling will never apply beyond California.

I understand how scary marriage equality can be, and I’m all in favor of NOM’s right to post fundraising messages. But could we please apply some Christian honesty before we pass the virtual collection plate?

Hugs,
Rev. Steve
Ex. 20:16