Today we held our second and final rally in the Hawkeye State in Sioux City, IA near Iowa's border with Nebraska and South Dakota. Iowa is a particularly important part of our marriage tour given the relevancy of the issue here.
Last spring, a handful of non-elected justices legalized same-sex marriage through judicial activism. Well, this year three of those justices are on the ballot in November and the people will have the opportunity to retain them or to vote them out. The message we have been pushing in Iowa this week has been to vote them out.
 |
| "One Man, One Woman" marriage rally Sioux City, IA (August 3, 2010) |
They can take a picture from forty feet away and count the heads they see. Sure from that point of view and in a two-dimensional photo, there very well may be only 56 heads visible. But said photo lacks important aspects such as depth which is why their head count of 56 is about 25 heads short.
There's no way one photo from one vantage point is going to show each person standing in a group! It's a very simple concept yet our opponents have made this mistake time and time again - but the point is that it actually isn't a mistake.
They are doing this on purpose because if NOM appears to have high turnouts or at the very least turnouts that are greater than their counter protests, then they lose.
This is why time and time again we see their estimates of our turnouts to be lower than media reports and more importantly, lower than their counter-protest turnout. The first thing they posted today was about turnout focusing on 56 NOM supporters and a convienently slightly higher 64 same-sex marriage supporters.
 |
| Volunteers signing up to join us in our effort to protect marriage across the country. |
As Brian has been reporting, we've got 750 thousand now and we need two million and one of the reasons we are doing this Summer for Marriage Tour is to get out there and reach out to rational American citizens who are ready to stand up with us for marriage between a man and a woman.
Rational Americans with their moral compasses properly calibrated like these people you see are the ones who have in the past and who are going to protect marriage in the future. The National Organization for Marriage is working to organize and activate these people.
 |
| This woman was excited to sign up and wanted to say a few things so we interviewed her on camera. |
If you can't find both of them, then you must admit that no picture (unless taken from above) is going to show every person assembled in a group at a rally which then by default tells you that the tally our opponents made by counting heads in a taken in a picture from forty feet away must be inaccurate.
What about this woman in the purple shirt? Can you find here in the first picture in this article? If not, does that mean that she wasn't there?
This is because generally speaking, the people of Iowa do not support same-sex marriage and believe in authentic marriage between a man and a woman.
Our stalkers from California were also there milling around and "radioing in" to their colleagues out in California. Much to my surprise, they didn't go for another one-on-two exclusive interview with Brian Brown again.
They must have gotten tired of having the same conversation everyday. Especially since the conversation doesn't go quite the way they stay up all night planning it on their blogs.
Posts
37 comments:
Louis keeps writing: "Rational Americans with their moral compasses properly calibrated" and implying that such people would automatically side with his extremist beliefs.
If you ask me, Louis, rational Americans with their moral compasses properly calibrated stay out of other peoples' lives/bedrooms/marriages because they know it's none of their business. Why do you want to peep in at windows to see what other people do in private?
Bless your heart, Louis.
Fiona64
Honestly Louis, if you have to start defending your rally's attendance by arguing over a difference of 10-30 people, then the failure of said rally is already pretty apparent.
It's not about what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. People don't get married in the privacy of their bedrooms. Marriage is a public contract, a public affair.
One needs witnesses to be present. With that alone taken into consideration, marriage is far from private.
The government is a party to said marriage contract. In our country, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore, I too, am a party to each and every marriage contract.
Parties involved in legal contracts have a say in the terms of the contract, do they not?
I do not oppose what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. What I oppose is when they take it out of their homes and into the public square and force their lifestyle down every else's throats.
What was it that SF mayor Newsom said about gay marriage? Oh, that gay marriage is coming "whether you like it or not".
Louis you have a seriously flawed concept of "the public square," inasmuch as you think my right to exist in the public light just as you do is tantamount to "shoving it down your throat."
When I hold my marriage in your living room, then it's shoving it down your throat.
When I literally force you to attend my wedding, then it's shoving it down your throat.
When I deliberately go out of my way to interrupt your daily life and personal space to draw your attention to my life, my marriage, and my values, then it's shoving it down your throat.
When your church is literally forced to extend marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples, then it's shoving it down your throat.
When I have the same right to a civil marriage as you, and when the only people involved in my wedding are my friends and family who all want to be there, there is absolutely *nothing* being shoved down your throat.
Well, Louis, I guess you showed us. You took a closeup of 24 people and challenged us to find these three women in that subsection of the crowd.
I don't think anyone said that there were only 24 people there so I don't think you've made much of a point, but...
The blond woman in green is next to the guy in the baseball cap to the right.
Timothy wins this round of EyeSpy®, Louis.
Louis has yet to explain how gay marriage is a "threat" to traditional marriage. People wonder why judges frequently find for the supporters of gay marriage: the evidence for its supposed "harm" to society never exists. All you guys got is "the Bible says" (although this is somewhat a joke because divorce is a sin in the Bible and I have yet to see any Christian show much interest in protecting marriage by banning divorce).
- Tom Z.
Zortnac,
That's why I specifically used the word "both". So the challenge is still on. Can you find both?
Louis wrote: Parties involved in legal contracts have a say in the terms of the contract, do they not?
Gosh, Louis ... I don't remember you being present when my husband and I got married. Nor do I see your name as a signatory on the contract. Ergo, you are not party to the contract, nor its terms.
Bless your heart, Louis.
Fiona64
Keep up the fight OMOW.... there are well over 2 million people who are willing to sign and will stand for what is right, the problem is trying to reach these people. Don't let the taunting of those who love Satan hinder your strength to press forward. Turn to the Lord Jesus and he will provide you with everything you need. We need to stay focused on the issue at hand, don't worry about defending yourself or the cause because on lookers can more easily see who is right and who is wrong when they do not get caught up in debates. Remain steadfast, stay focused and know that there are many out there praying for you. We support you in spreading the word of our Lord and Savior and the biblical principles of family One mother, one father and their children.
Oh Louis, you crack me up.
I guess you went and counted the total number of people in the picture that NOM posted of Des Moines (taken from an elevated front view so that literally every person there could be seen - unless maybe there were some hiding under a bush?). And I guess you didn't like what you found - my count was spot on, wasn't it?
Look, Louis, 80 people at a rally is as much of an utter failure as 56.
Both are embarrassingly bad and it doesn't much matter to be which is true. But I think it is hysterically funny that you double and triple the crowd size at every single event. If 20 show up, you say 50. If the crowd is 73, you say "over 200".
I dunno, man. I wouldn't make a fool of myself that way.
Just own your crowd. It's all you got there, but hey at least this tiny group showed up, right?
So Louis, using your logic (if you can call it that) that we're all parties in everyone else's marriage, all potential spouses should go through some sort of peer review before being issued a marriage license. Maybe each November every town or city's ballot should list all of the couples who intend to marry in the coming 12 months. If you lose at the ballot box, no wedding for you (of course you'd be free to try again the following year). Question #3: Should Louis and Jane receive a marriage license? My vote: No (Louis is all anti-gay and stuff and he's going to spend weeks at a time away from home riding around in an RV crusading against people he doesn't like.) Sound like a ridiculous scenario? It's no more ridiculous than the argument you just tried to make.
Hi Louis,
I believe I met you in Albany. You came right up and talked to me (and you didn't seem scared or intimidated in the least, btw). But I was holding a sign that said "Fear is a destructive lifestyle, go with love" and you even took a picture.
I wrote that sign because the main message I've been seeing from NOM and NOM supporters is that same-sex marriage is something we should all fear. I'm having a hard time understanding exactly why that is, and why anyone should fear another couple's love for each other at all.
We didn't get much of a chance to chat at the rally in Albany, so I'd like to ask you some questions now. I'm trying to be respectful here in hopes that you'll be willing to enlighten me more on your position. If you have a good message, then you shouldn't have a problem with sharing it.
I am a straight woman who has been in a long term monogamous relationship for a while now. If I end up marrying the man I'm with, can you tell me exactly how our marriage would be affected if same-sex marriage was legalized? Would there be direct negative impacts to our life together, and what would those be? What about my marriage needs protection?
And this is a little beside the point, but I'm going off of statements you've made. You contend that the purposes of all marriages should be to start families and propagate the next generation. This interests me because my boyfriend and I mutually agree that we don't want to have children and don't see them in our future. I ask you, do you think our marriage would damage the institution at all? Do you think that we, and people like us, should not be married? If so, why? If you would still defend our marriage despite our plan not to have kids, then why?
I'd love to hear from you. And if you have any questions from me or would like any additional info on my point of view, you are more than welcome to ask. This would probably work best if both sides make attempts to understand the other.
Thanks for your time.
-Vicki
Poor boy, apparently you think that you screaming at the top of your longs that this tour is a complete and utter failure all of a suddden doesn't make it so.
Newsflash: This tour has been a complete and utter failure. I was in my city's "rally" and it was horribly attended. We outnumbered you guys 3 to 1 and you screaming at us doesn't make it any less of a failure.
You failed, NOM failed, the tour failed, this is all one big long chapter of failure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/4857628832/
The blond woman in the green shirt is standing a couple of people to the right of the guy in the red shirt. She has her hand over her mouth, just like the kid in the red shirt at her feet does. The red haired woman in the black shirt is in the front row, clutching some papers, to the left of the large woman in the bright blue top. And it appears as though the heavy set woman in the purple top gave it up as a bad job and went home. Or perhaps you got your pictures mixed up and she was actually at a different stop altogether.
This is a fun game!
By the way, are you looking forward to today's Prop 8 ruling?
Holtorfsangel wrote: biblical principles of family One mother, one father and their children.
Hmm. I thought the Biblical principle was one man, as many wives as he could afford, and their children. Ref: Solomon et al.
Gotta love the scriptural cherry-picking.
Fiona64
"I do not oppose what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. What I oppose is when they take it out of their homes and into the public square and force their lifestyle down every else's throats."
Louis:
Pot, kettle, black much?
Marriage - the personal aspect of it - is a private agreement that is shared between the couple, family, and friends. You obviously do care what goes on in "the privacy of our homes" by allowing your religious beliefs to define how the government treats our relationships and our households.
There is a key difference here. LGBT couples are citizens. We exist in public as we are citizens in this country. However, despite whether legally recognized by the federal government we are having private marriage ceremonies every day, whether or not you put marriage in quotes.
Please keep your beliefs out of our household. You can start by recognizing that the marriage you hold so dearly has not existed "since the beginning of time". In fact, the word marriage was never a part of Jewish/Christian culture until the Plebeian model of marriage was usurped by Christians in Rome. Before Rome, Jewish/Christian culture had a polygynous model for marriage (one man, many wives).
In Rome, the monogamous model existed and was gender neutral. There were gay, married couples who were executed by the first of the Roman, Christian emperors.
It seems to me you're kicking and screaming about something you really do not understand. Marriage is not your manifest destiny. It is a human construct, a word that means many different things to many different people.
So please keep your beliefs out of my living room - where one day in the future I will most likely be having a marriage ceremony with close friends, family, and the man that I love.
-RJ
The lady with the blond hair is in the photo just left of the guy in the tan baseball cap. Your rallies aren't very big, are they?
I found the second lady in the photos... the lady with the long reddish hair and blue shirt is shown in the photo at the top of your website page, under the heading "A Rally Under the Clouds". She's being blocked in the other shot by the man in the peach colored shirt... still a small crowd if it is fewer than 100, don't you think? I guess most people would rather live and let live.
Louis, by your own statement, "Marriage is a public contract" right? More specifically, it is a legal contract. You've just made our case for us; this is about a civil agreement that binds two people together legally, and furthermore affords them quite a few legal benefits. Marriage as a religious rite is not what is being fought over here. You, by virtue of being born heterosexual do not rate higher than me, who was born gay; we are all equal under the Constitution. Our nation was formed to prevent people from discriminating based on hate, fear, and other differences of understanding. You don't deserve civil (governmentally bestowed) rights while I deserve discrimination and hardship, that's not how our country was designed.
This country ensures two things:
1) I deserve the same rights as you.
2) I don't tell you how to run your religion.
All that is to say, you can keep believing that gays shouldn't get married in your church, your church can marry or not marry whomever they like; that's the nature of religious freedom, for which I'm sure you're grateful. But you can't have it one way and not the other... by virtue of the freedom set forth at the beginning of this nation, we all deserve the same legal, civil rights.
You drive the bus, right, Louis? We're not interested in sitting in the back of the bus anymore. Rosa's gay.
Sincerely,
The Lady in the Front Row Who Isn't Going to Move Back
Thank you to our Anonymous visitor. He/She has proven my point.
"the lady with the long reddish hair and blue shirt is shown in the photo at the top of your website page, under the heading "A Rally Under the Clouds". She's being blocked in the other shot by the man..."
This demonstrates that one needs more than one photo in order to accurately count how many people were there.
Hey Louis,
This is Arisha from NOM Tour Tracker (you refer to me as stalker in your other posts). You know we don't use these pictures to count because you watch us stand there and count at every stop. Each day we take 3 hand counts on the ground at your rallies at 3 separate times; compare those numbers and then count again, updating our blog with new #s. It's definitely not a science (with people constantly moving around), but we're not THAT off. But fyi, I don't count kids and dogs on leashes at either rally (they don't have a choice to be there).
Or, you know, people who are actually present at the rallies can handcount for themselves -- sort of like the folks whom you call your "stalkers" are doing.
Bless your heart, Louis.
Fiona64
"the lady with the long reddish hair and blue shirt is shown in the photo at the top of your website page, under the heading "A Rally Under the Clouds". She's being blocked in the other shot by the man..."
Louis, exactly how many people can there possibly blocked by other people? I had my brother-in-law, a US Park Police who specializes in crowd counts, he's also not venturing over 90.
Just a little something from the "read it and weep" files for you, Louis:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/04/breaking-prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional/
Love,
Fiona64
Boy, it must suck to be you. First you loose this battle in your own turf and now you have to deal with Prop 8 being overturned.
You are not having a good day baby.
Just one more thing, Louis. Brian Brown et al are now complaining about the "civil right to vote on marriage."
One little problem: marriage is a fundamental civil right, per Loving v. Virginia.
And guess what?
In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the US Supreme Court said this: "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Bless your heart, Louis.
Love,
Fiona64
No, Louis, in the photo *I* posted, you can see ALL of the people who are there. So you don't really need more than one. Just one that is accurate.
Nice try though.
Louis, would you kindly address my questions? I think if you did, it would be more productive than playing photo-scavenger hunt.
Thank you. I look forward to your reply and learning more about where you are coming from.
-Vicki
Louis, change in strategy? No. We just got bored with you.
Our constitution was upheld today. By a judge who is a Republican and was appointed by George Bush Sr. Read the ruling Louis. You'll learn a lot.
Best to you. Now go home and let everyone live in peace. Stop harming innocent people.
P.S. NOM will not answer my email requests to interview Brian and Maggie. Could you pass this along? Thanks Louis.
OK, Louis. So post however many pictures you need to show your entire audience. We can look at them and eliminate where people show up in more than one picture, then count how many there actually are. That would be fine! Go ahead and put up as many pictures as you like.
When you are willing to hold your 'rally' in the true public square, not cordon off the area to a select group who don't oppose your viewpoint the we can talk about being fair.
Your rally would have done better in the West where there are less people willing to stand for what's right. Try Provo Utah, Sandpoint, Idaho, you know, home for the right wing bastion of whiteness and common dislike of anyone who is not exactly like you.
Hey Louie, as a fellow Italian-American I want to send you a message. I'm queer, been with someone for 17 years. That's longer than some of the 'marriages' of my straight friends.
So stop trying to spin it like you have more bigots supporting you. You don't and you're on the losing side of history. I hope you're enjoying it you bigot!
I believe this is what Louis is talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdvWUEUQDfE&feature=related
I don't really care how many people you had at your rally anymore. A great deal of people helped block the schoolhouse door in Alabama. Thousands fought to keep women from gaining the vote. Millions fought to keep our fellow mankind enslaved. Countless people throughout our history have supported and rallied for many outdated and bygone social injustices in this country.
Hope. Love. Peace. That is what empowers us, Louis. By that Equality and Justice are the standards we will set.
The future is ours.
It always has been.
I'm confused. Is this like "Where's Waldo" in reverse?
Just wondering where I can view the interview of the woman in the purple shirt... Thanks!
Post a Comment