NOM's Thomas Peters on PBS: The Future of the Pro-Marriage Movement is Bright


NOM's Thomas Peters discusses the election results on PBS NewsHour and also responds to the inevitable question about inevitability:

Here is the last exchange between the host and Peters:

Suarez: "Aren't you standing on shifting sand? Given the momentum of the polls, given the momentum of the legal challenges, the losses in various federal appellate courts, the changes in various state laws, maybe you'll win tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but are you fighting against an inevitability?"

Peters: "No for two important reasons, first of all, I believe in the truth of my pro-marriage views, just as the other side does, and people who have those deep-seated convictions don't look at the changing tides wherever they may be they fight for what's true and what's right. Second of all, I think it's amazing with all of the cultural forces tying to redefine marriage that we're still here in 2012 just barely seeing some footholds gained in deep blue states. I think the future of the marriage movement is bright and ultimately I don't believe history moves in one direction."


  1. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, either this group (which I've never heard of until today) is "very prestigious and loaded with heavyweight intellectuals" who obvious know a lot about the marriage condition, or are unable to provide any "intellectually valid reason or principled legal reason to give the word marriage or its legal benefits to any number of arrangements". You really can't argue out of both sides of your mouth and hold any validity.

  2. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink


    I left out a word there...

    "Once you remove marriage from a grounding in biology than you make it all about feelings. There is no intellectually valid reason or principled legal reason to NOT give the word marriage or its legal benifits to any number of arrangments."

    Your free to read there arguments for yourself. That is why I provide the link. It also contains a list of the signatories and their respective employers and feilds of study.

    I dont know what you mean by "marriage condition".

    Its not really germaine that you have not heard of the organization. The point of bringing it up is to demonstrate that accept the arguments for same-sex "marriage" as valid you put marriage as an insitution on untenable grounds.

    Society has always understood the purpose of marriage and socieities interest in promoting and protecting it.

    These intellectuals are simply demonstrating the level of insight & principled thinking that more pedestrian advocates dont demonstrate.

    I think you and other gay advocates are simply thinking of marriage only inasmuch as it benifits you in terms of both legal incidents and social affirmation.

    What your ignoring is that any number of arrangments are also as valid as gay relationships and once you allow for one aception to historical norms you cant make a principled case for denying the others.

  3. reader
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    The beyond marriage website is interesting, but being for marriage between a man and a woman is not against equality, it is for equality between men and women. Through this bond, they interact and can learn to respect one another. Personally, I feel marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, because this legality today allows the greatest equality seen in history. If we legalize, we say it is ok for men and women to be split. The romans legalized it, propagated it, but they did not let women vote or hold property. They discriminated against other races. One man and one woman is the most equal, as they equally share and understand one another. Remember Einstein "insanity is when you repeat the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"

  4. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    "Society has always understood the purpose of marriage and socieities interest in promoting and protecting it."

    And, what is that exactly? Is it to raise children? Is it to inherit wealth?

    Once you have defined the above, please tell me how expanding marriage to same sex couples will harm marriage. So far, in every trial, the "traditional marriage" people have failed to come up with any credible reason short of animus against gay people.

  5. Fitz
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink


    You have not followed "every trial" nor read every court decsion. We have won court cases in New York, Washinton, Maryland, New Jersey..whose courts said marriage rested on a rational basis and was not at all related to a irrational animus..

    You display very little knowledge of the parmaters of this debate..

    You show very litle sophistication or charity in your exchanges.

    When presented with sound arguments and valid demonstrations you either ignore the points or pretend they stand for something they dont.

    I have been around this block before. I'm under no obligation to educate you as to your opponents arguments.

    Its called burden shifting mark...

    Gay men and woman are being used as the latest proletariate in the war against traditional marriage and family.

  6. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Futz gay men and women are being granted access to marriage for the first time in history. I know bigots like you had trouble accepting when women could vote and "colored people" could go to the same schools as the normal kids. But the notion that gays are trying to wage war on an institution we want to participate in is hilariously funny to me. So, let's see here, i got married in order to destroy marriage!!! Futz you should be a stand up comedian. You old Cathiolic farts crack me up.

  7. Dan
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Futz why didn't you answer my questions? I asked you some serious questions which you ignored. I want to know why you think gays are morally obligated to support marriage between siblings, or humans with animals. It is illogical, yet you brought it up. Explain why gays must support polygamy. Explain to me why I should support two brothers getting married. For the record, I oppose incestuous marriages. I oppose marriage to animals and children. And I support polygamy. Now why am I a bigot because I think a mother and daughter shouldn't marry each other.

  8. MarkOH
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Fitz, what a shame. You cannot answer simple questions so you attack me. It demonstrates how shallow and empty your arguments are. There is no war against marriage except in your own paranoid mind. Your side may have won earlier battles but the war will be won by marriage equality. You will go down in history like George Wallace, a sad foot note in bigotry.

  9. OldKingBlog
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    Dear Markie: When are you lefties ever going to abandon the if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-a-bigot argument? That argument was used in the early Sixties when the so-called civil rights movement was heating up. But by the end of that decade it was shopworn and tiresome. Now it belongs in a museam. Can you come up with something new? Just this once?

  10. Frank
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    You're right about that, Thomas. The future of the pro-marriage movement looks very bright indeed.

  11. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    MarkOH, how spot on you are. The anti-equality people clearly have no valid nor logical reason to oppose marriage equality, so they bring all sorts of red herrings into the discussion. You would not have believed the victimhood they played into during the Prop 8 campaign. They actually showed pictures of children who attended their lesbian teacher's wedding and made it look as if the kids were being tortured in a tortuew chamber. Then the ad said: "think what this means to your children." It was the same tactics used by Nazis against Jews and the KKK against blacks. Just read the comments by BarbChamberlain an you'll see the paranoia and victimhood I speak of. Can you tell me how heterosexuals are harmed because I got married? Ironically, these people have no logic whatsoever. Barb says she opposes gays raising children. How does denying marriage equality prevent gays from raising children? There is a logical disconnect in their cognitive functions.

  12. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    FeminineEagle I hate to burst your delusional bubble, but this is 2012 and the criteria for who can marry now includes gay couples in nine states and Washington, DC. Are you aware that you were once excluded from voting for a very, very long time? I can hear a man in 1912 saying: the criteria for voting always was a man ONLY! PERIOD! See how out of touch you are? Over 180,000 Americans can now show you their marriage license which involves a spouse of the same gender. If you conservative types don't change your message, you will continue to lose elections. Just advice for you... Evolve or die out. Your choice.

  13. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:44 am | Permalink

    It looks as if marriage equality will be on the agenda of the veto- proof Democratic state legislature in Illinois in the next session:
    Next up for marriage equality: Delaware, Rhode Island (which already recognizes out of state marriages), New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon and Minnesota. Stay tuned, folks, we intend to make history and keep the momentum going.

  14. Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:35 am | Permalink

    Dan, once I see evidence that the defensive, soft, play-out-the-clock strategy which cost us four deep blue states by razor thin margins has been ditched, and we are prepared to fight gay pseudo-marriage as the existential threat to civilization that it is.........

    I will be happy to fight you every step of the way.

  15. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Rick, it really is sad that you would stand on the steps of the school along with George Wallace and prevent school equality. Oh, I'm sorry, it's 2012. Now you are just preventing marriage equality. Tell me, what does it get you other than a black spot in history? Please, look to the polls, with almost 70% acceptance for those under 35, marriage equality is a a DONE DEAL. Obama may appoint up to 3 Supreme Court justices and, except for the south, most of the nation is moving into the future as the 4 wins prove.

  16. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Silly homosexuals like to try and equate their condition with Blacks during the 1960s. Here's the difference: there is no consequence to the difference in color between two people. Contrast the fact that the anatomical differences between a man and a woman have huge consequences, i.e., a man and a woman have the potential to create new human beings, and those human beings need to be cared for.

    Marriage is a recognition of the fact that male-female couples make babies, and the government/society has an interest in promoting lifelong commitments between such potentially procreating couples.

    The question is not what harm do same-sex couples cause to marriage (although there are harms), but what good do same-sex couples provide to society that makes them worthy of the same recognition given to male-female couples? Or more to the point: society does not care whether same-sex couples form long-term partnerships, because there is absolutely no possibility of a child being created. Homosexuals want us to believe that reproductive sex is a negligible biological function; I suppose when doesn't have the inclination to reproduce that it is convenient to think that way.

    The consequences of the creation of children are so important to society (in both good and bad ways), that society recognizes marriages between all male-female couples regardless of their intention to procreate and regardless of whether they actually can procreate. Fertile M-F couples who have no intention of having children nonetheless have the potential to create children despite the couples' intention; nothing is more common than an accidental pregnancy. Infertile married M-F couples promote marriage to single fertile persons and unmarried fertile couples through example: one of the key reasons that people get married is because everyone else does (indeed, this is one of the motivations of the homosexuals, desiring to be the same as everybody else). Moreover, all married male-female couples are assumed to be or have been fertile by virtue of biology; thus, male-female marriage is deemed to be an institution for procreating couples.

    Same-sex couples are inherently non-procreating. Thus, same-sex "marriage" undermines the perception that marriage is the institution that unites moms and dads with their offspring. With marriage no longer perceived as the institution for bearing children, fewer M-F couples will get married. This ultimately leads to more children brought up without both a mom and a dad, and leads to more children being supported by taxpayer dollars.

  17. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Same-sex "marriage" implies that same-sex couples are the same as M-F couples. A quick peak into any biology text will tell you that that simply is not the case. There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about treating different things differently when those differences have significant consequences for society.

    Men are not the same as women; same -sex couples are not the same as M-F couples. To treat them as if they are the same is just stupid, frankly.

  18. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    History will look back on this era as the time when aging radicals from the 1960s achieved positions of power and began to lead the country in a bizarre direction. We know that a generation of conservatives is in the wings waiting to re-route the country back to its former status, so enjoy these groovy days for as long as you can before the adults are back in charge.

  19. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I don't know why people say SSM is futuristic it has happened in the past ages and ages ago, like thousands of years ago and people got past it, now people want to go back? W/e and people have been brainwashed into thinking people are born that way. I get into arguments and refer to people who were one way than chose the other and then this blinded person then says that person has a mental illness or something, I never said they did they just accused them, but other people don't for them b/c they were supposedly born that way. I've seen lots of people who changed course later so for them to say it isn't a choice is ignoring reality.

  20. Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    You think equality supporters believe everyone is "the same"? Your comments are very general and vague. In general, this is a movement for SS couples to receive legal BENEFITS that we are entitled to, that's all. Your motivation (to deny said benefits) is based on the fact that since you "chose" not to live the life as a gay person, every other person with such an orientation should follow suit. BIG gray areas here and everywhere. It's not nearly as simple as you claim.

  21. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    "Men are not the same as women" And noone said they were. However, marriage is a legal relationship and to restrict it to your narrow definition is discriminatory.

    And, pray tell, where is this large group who will take this country BACKWARDS ? Oh, yes, the Koch brothers have pumped HUGE amounts of money into politics and, yet, the Democratic party still had a HUGE win.

  22. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Also, it is not healthy. It's divisive and groups people up. It actually makes people unequal. It's the extreme left who think that by legalizing it, that it won't spread. They need to get a sense of perspective because it will spread b/c people will think the lifestyle is OK and people in pre-school now have to listen to it like in San Fran. A lot of them can be hateful though, people with the SSM lifestyle like the crooked men to the straight women. I had a relative who went though the entertainment industry, so she saw a lot of them and she said they were nasty b/c they were jealous of straight women and catty. I've experienced their jealousy also and it is not enjoyable especially when they're in customer service. I think they should stop saying they're not having a good life w/o this stuff b/c they are and are nasty to people and no one cares b/c why should they care it's just some random person,l but now they're teaching kids it's the right way to go, it's at birth? They take their hate too far, in my opinion. We don't want your lifestyle, thanks now leave my life alone.

  23. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Dan actually no the first woman vote was actually October 30, 1756 in colonial America as Lydia Taft. Women voted in regional meetings long before it became legal federally, but w/e. It's not like it happened overnight and it was the Dems who were not for women voting federally b/c they were for the majority always and in their mind that was the majority when it wasn't for the R's at all, those colonial people's descendants were R's later not D's. D's are for the majority, R's are for sensibility and small gov't with a republic of representatives. They wanted restrictions to make it safer to protect against tyranny of the majority or an overly strong leader.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Discrimination, as it relates to behavior, is not the crime you make it out to be MarkOH.

    Embrassing the failed polices of ancient Rome is not the progressive step you seem to believe it is.

  25. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    It is irrelevant whether the Democrats had a huge win.

    What is relevant is whether, faced with a civilization so drastically disoriented as to surrender its own children to indoctrination in a particularly virulent form of child abuse (mothers are not necessarily female, fathers are not necessarily male)- what is relevant is whether these lies are identified and resisted as the civilization-destroying, canary-in-the-coal mine signs they ion fact are.

    The acceptance of homosexual disorientation as "normal" is the consequence of a lack of courage on the part of parents.

    I am looking to support an organization that will fight this darkness, instead of equivocating about it.

    Forget the elections- the elections happened, look out below.

    What is relevant now is the fate of the children who have been betrayed by the electorate.

  26. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    "civilization so drastically disoriented as to surrender its own children to indoctrination in a particularly virulent form of child abuse".
    Sorry, Rick. I would call your feelings HATRED.
    Your comment (#134) is HARSH, dude. "The sky is falling!!"

  27. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Davey and Mark -

    If you want to shack up with a good buddy and contract with one another for inheritance rights and hospital visitation, and whatever else you think you are being denied, go for it. But when you assign the word "marriage," you are saying that the partnership is the same as any other married couple, and that's simply untrue. Two guys can't create a child nor can two gals; as such, society has every right to treat your couple differently and label it differently, because it is different and that difference has huge consequences for society.

  28. Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink


    Yes, REALLY.

    It's not about feelings, however kuch you prefer to substitute them for truth.

    The truth is, it is a monumental form of child abuse to subject innocent children to indoctrination in the homosexualist lie that not all mothers are female, not all fathers are male.

    This is a lie.

    It is a virulent form of child abuse.

    Shame on the profoundly disoriented and weak voters in MN, MD, WA, and MN, who considered how goood it "feels" to have the approval of liars like Davey here.

  29. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I remember when I was looking after one of the neighbor's kids almost two years ago and she said something odd one day (pouting and moody) that she wished she was a boy and that she thought she was supposedly fat. She said the other kid's were picking on her and called her fat and not being strong enough, boys get more things. She didn't want to play with them anymore. I said they're just jealous that you're pretty and that she seemed a normal weight to me, not fat at all. She continued to pout I knew this could become a problem in a place like CA so I seriously and sternly said girls are great and it's good to be a girl, you don't want to be a boy, you;re pretty, smart and normal. Kids pick on each other all the time at this age b/c they don't really understand what they're doing and lack impulse control. You're just very mature for your age. They're just jealous. After that she never mentioned being fat or wanting to be a boy again and she seems very fine and happy with the way she is as a girl.

  30. Tribune
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Rick. I have to agree with your post. To emphasize how politically inadequate the voters that decided to go along with this farce, those same supporters will be outraged when thier children are forced to learn about homosexuality and homosexual marriage at an early age WITHOUT parental consent. Or if they disagree with a request from the gay community how they will be be punished for exccersing personal choice. Or how thier tax money will be spent on gay health issue because that community will not excerise personal resposibility. Or how tHey will disturb religious services or vandalize houses of worship. Or physically get attacked or send fecal care packages by gay advocates for expressiong thier own constituional right to an opinion.

    Those supporter will be locked in a jail of thier own making.

  31. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    The system for posting comments here still sucks; there is no apparent rhyme or reason for the disappearance of comments. I type a long comment only to never have it show up. Immediately after, I post a short comment that appears immediately.

    Hey NOM, now that the election is over, why not take some time and get a decent blog system?

  32. B DeCicco
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    I think the smartest thing Peters says here is that he believes history does not move in only one direction. In this, he is correct and timely. Things reverse, circle back, and our era is ripe for such a reversal now, notwithstanding the recent gains for "marriage equality".

  33. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Rick DeLano, you are not speaking so much for support for "traditional marriage" as you are anti-gay. Get over your homophobia and then, perhaps, we can discuss this like adults.

  34. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Tribune, and why should children NOT learn age appropriate information about homosexuality? What do you fear will happen? That they will all turn gay? You do realize that all the gay people today were raised in a VERY strict heterosexual world and it didn't make them straight. Also, I feel it's important to teach children reality. How else will they learn?

  35. Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Mark from OH:

    Your telepathic pseudo-diagnoses are well documented here.

    I am immune to the tactic.

    Time to fight the liars who would impose child abuse on innocent children, by forced indoctrination in the homosexualist lie that mothers are not necessarily female, fathers are not necessarily male.

    The homosexuals can go ahead and call that homophobia if they want.

    Since they are liars, let us give them full opportunity to lie in their moment of overconfidence.

  36. Dan
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Rick, child abuse is telling a gay child that they are damaged and unworthy of the right to marry simply because they are gay.

  37. Fitz
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Overcame (writes)

    "The system for posting comments here still sucks; there is no apparent rhyme or reason for the disappearance of comments. I type a long comment only to never have it show up. Immediately after, I post a short comment that appears immediately. "

    I have the same problem...Make sure you save your comments to word or another document before you paste.

    Sometimes longer comments need to be broken down in several posts...

    Sometimes whole sections (for who knows what reason) simply cant be posted....

    God Bless

  38. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Not to hijack the thread, too much, Fitz, but "for who knows what reason" are the operative words. In this age of advanced technology, there's no reason for long posts to have to be broken down. And the worst of it is, is it appears to be a random selectivity. If NOM wants its advocates to continue posting, it needs to get up to speed technologically. I'm leaving today, once again, out of frustration.

  39. Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Dan, you are lyiong again:

    "Rick, child abuse is telling a gay child that they are damaged and unworthy of the right to marry simply because they are gay."

    No one is prevented from marrying because they subjectively report that they are "gay".

    They nay mnarry whether they report themselves "gay" or ""straight", or "questioning", or "lesbian", or "happy", "sad", "liberal" or "conservative.

    Let us recognize the entire Alinskyite scam of the pseudo-marriage for what it is: an attempt to impose subjective, gender-left "values" as a substitute for the objective biological fact that the human species is constituted in two, complementary genders.

    There exists no child whyo is the result of the union of exactly one male and exactly one female.

    Homosexualist liars can lie as long as the weak-minded dupes allow them to get away with it.

    The rest of us need to sharpen up our game.

  40. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    "Also, I feel it's important to teach children reality. " - What you really mean is YOUR warped reality, and not actual reality, which is that men and women and equal and form relationships with one another. The other way is divisive, one-sided, and is not backed up by any historical or scientific benefit. Plus, the places which had SSM in the past were not so pretty. It took the dark ages for people to really fess up to reality, that marriage should be and always be, between a man and a woman, and both persons treated equally under the law.

  41. MarkOH
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Rick DeLano
    Babble about the "Homosexualist liars" all you want. You are doomed to be seen by your children and grandchildren as a bigot. One who prevented loving individuals from marrying. Call it a liberal brainwashing, or a failure of your anti-equality ideals, just realize this is a war that you will lose. Oh, and I'd see someone about the paranoid ideation if I were you.

  42. reader
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    "Rick DeLano, you are not speaking so much for support for "traditional marriage" as you are anti-gay. " No one is anti-any individual person. In my opinion, there is a person and then there are their actions. The two parts are separate. You can sympathize or not feel anything toward the person, but you can feel anger or non-satisfaction for their actions. Everyone should have the right to a court under the law, minor or major, and no drastic actions taken by unruly individuals. Keep it to the courtroom. Hate crimes, drastic vigilantes will be punished, so keep your stuff to yourself and leave it to the law. No one is against any PERSON, but could be not for their ACTIONS. There's a story where men dragged a woman out in the NT in front of Jesus and said she was caught in adultery, so they should stone her (ugh!). Jesus ignored them and said "let the one who has no sins throw the first stone." NO ONE threw any stones and left and the woman was fine. Yay! Reminds me a lot about our court rooms and mostly peaceful society.

  43. lhf
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink


    Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    "Men are not the same as women" And noone said they were. However, marriage is a legal relationship and to restrict it to your narrow definition is discriminatory. "

    So, does the state have the authority to regulate marriage? If not, then you ought to be arguing for the complete de-regulation of marriage. If that is what you are advocating, then who is going to decide who is a parent for the purpose of custody decisions? Who will decide inheritance issues?

    If yes, then what kind of regulation would be acceptable - since gender is out? Can it limit the number of people who may "marry" each other, or is that too narrow a definition and therefore discriminatory? What about consanguinity or age limitations? Are they too narrow and discriminitory?

  44. Chairm Ohn
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    The SSMer who routinely accuses others of bigotry needs to state the objective criteria used by that SSMer for determining whether a comment is bigoted.

    Do SSMers agree on such criteria?

  45. Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink


    Of course not.

    SSM'ers insist that it is a form of discrimination to point out that every single child has exactly one (male) father and exactly one (female) mother.

    Objective criteria cannot be inserted into a world-view which is predicated upon a demonstrable absurdity.

  46. Dan (the true marriage supporter)
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Recommended reading:

    Note especially points #3 and #4. We've got to change our strategy, folks. It's clear we can't be afraid or ashamed of speaking the truth - the whole truth - if we really expect to win the battles that are coming.

    As to point #6, why aren't we showing images like these (churches vandalized for support of true marriage) in the videos of what's to become of religious freedoms when people support ssm? Really folks, we're doing ourselves a disservice and making this so much more difficult than it needs to be if we'd just stop playing defense and play offense for a change.

  47. OvercameSSA
    Posted November 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link, Dan (ttms).

    We can't be afraid to call the homosexual agenda and homosexual behavior the threat that it is to society and our children. They are the haters, they are the attackers of our religion, they are the tyrants who intend to force their beliefs on our children, they are anti-mother and father claiming that homosexuals make better parents than a child's real parents.

    I'd love to see some gay-pride parade footage show up in some of these ads; that freakshow is what society has to decide whether it wants to mainstream or not.

  48. The Man
    Posted November 17, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Your Honors of the Court
    The question is not "Can I" or "May I" but rather

    What is Marriage?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.