Good As You

I think that all (ALL) interviews regarding political issues should be conducted by (openly) gay interviewers. Because it seems to me that the openly gay interviewers are the only ones who are capable of aggressively countering the liars. Look at Rachel Maddow's interview of Tom Ridge yesterday.. the bastard didn't get away with his convolution of the facts. Brown, here, didn't get away with his convenient choices as to which rights should be put up to a vote.

And, I love Anderson Cooper, and he does hit harder than most, but I think that if he were to actually come out (completely), that he might be more capable of holding the liars' feet to the flames.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I am biased, but openly gay interviewers seem to be somewhat more intrepid when navigating through the BS that most of these liars promulgate. The one caveat being, that hosts of "fake news" shows on Comedy Central also seem to get at the truth more than most other interviewers as well.

So NOM has no problem if gay and lesbian couples have the less than equal option of domestic partnerships which offers only SOME (enphasis on some) of the rights to marriage.

Two words for Brian and Maggie and the rest of NOM. F--- You.

In the New Jersey church example he brings up (and we know that's actually a discrimination issue, not a marriage issue specifically), the church wants to be able to refuse a same-sex couple from using their facility for something resembling a marriage ceremony.

Even without legal marriage, same sex couples--as members of the tax-paying public--can demand the right to rent out a publicly available building that's available to straight couples.

This guy doesn't see the distinction. He claims to be in favor of allowing the rights, but not in any context which might lead to a marriage ceremony. He assumes that "reciprocal benefit rights" are non-sexual in nature and therefore wouldn't come with any public display of commitment. If we were allowed no other form legal protection, we would have ceremonies to celebrate our reciprocal benefit partnerships. Hell, even before we had even that, gay couples threw commitment ceremonies.

What they want to stop is gay people from forming relationships. They say it's about religious liberty (the right to discriminate according to their religious beliefs), but it's really about wanting gay people to just go away.

What NOM wants to do is impose its religious beliefs on everyone else. In this process, they take away the religious liberty of pro-equality Americans and churches. If my Lutheran Church, for example, wants to marry me, it's not Brian's, NOM's, the government's or anyone else's business and I should have the same benefits from that marriage as those choosing the heterosexual lifestyle.

Dannyl: The New Jersey thing is the most deliberate misrepresentation under the "pro-family" sun. This site has detailed the flaws in their logic a billion and one times, but they will never listen. It's not like they don't already know the truth -- they just don't want their followers to know.

These groups always say that they don't have a problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions...

But haven't the haters gotten a repeal of domestic partnerships on the ballot in Washington?

They are liars and once they have banned gay marriage in every state they will come after domestic partnerships and civil unions. They already are.

Does anyone know where I can find a copy (audio or transcript) of Signorile's interview with Monica Hess? It's not on his site.