You sound a lot like a member of NOM or AFA using a sex predator case as comparrison Uand such a falsity in your description of the Sandusky case, who, by multiple reports, was found to not be doing his job correctly, but had it covered up. What a crock). I see the tactics of the far right are easily available for use.

You claim a desire for equality, but given the honest chance to give it, you would rather exact vengence.

I’ve never been ashamed of BEING gay, but sometimes I’m ashamed that those I am associated with look more for vengence and an eye for an eye than honest equality.

Equality means you don’t hang people for the same things you complain about them doing to you.

Our side takes FAR more casualties than the CLAIMS made by the anti gay.
They are SO eager, and exaggerate what happens to them, that the truth is an even sorrier casualty of the whole damn issue.

jpeck – she doesn’t have to give her approval to the ad – it’s a matter of public record and a news story. but would you blame her if she did? from her perspective, she voiced her opinion and they wolves came out after her and tried to take her livelihood.

the sad truth is that the substance of the ad is absolutely 100% true.

Further, I am not convinced she has given her consent to appear in this ad. Does it cross anyone’s mind that her lawyer may be advising her to stay out of the limelight, or may be working behind the scenes to have the ad taken down? Or exploring the possibility of filing a suit against NOM for damages caused by the ad?

I note the ad includes images from what I believe are the two pastors who made ads in favor of marriage equality. Do any of us think they gave their consent to appear in this ad?

And does anyone know sign language who can interpret what she is signing in the videos?

The class of students in San Francisco who went to their teacher’s same sex wedding during school hours and with the consent of their parents. Wonderful gesture but extremely damaging to our campaign against Prop 8.

The mayors who threatened to block CFA from opening restaurants in their cities. Again, they meant well but they turned a story about an anti-company supporting anti-gay causes into a full throttle firestorm about gay people stomping on First Amendment Rights, even though it wasn’t gay people who were doing the threatening.

Gavin Newsom declaring “Like it or not…” AGAIN, what he said was true and well meaning but it became an instant and effective pro-Prop 8 ad.

People on our side need to eventually figure out that 1) what feels good isn’t always the thing that’s effective or in our best interest and 2) timing is everything!

I’m pretty sure that we can now write off a win in Maryland which seemed likely to go our way before this debacle.

Schubert depends on voters being so completely clueless, so unable to parse through an argument and is counting on them reacting unthinkingly.

She just gave lip service on campus, but privately campaigned against the benefit of those very people she was pretending to advocate for.

This isn’t a freedom of speech issue — this is whether LGBT people feel like she represents them. She does not.

She has made it difficult for the school to defend itself in court.

If Gallaudet was ever sued for discrimination, especially by a student, and the plaintiff could show that while she was the school’s chief diversity officer she signed this petition, the fact would seriously discredit her testimony in court. Perhaps destroy it.

Worse, that the school kept her in the position after this fact was known would discredit, or destroy, the school’s claim to be serious about diversity and committed to enforcing its requirements.