Are you against gay marriage?

But they are Blanche!

BREAKING NEWS! North Carolina Republicans File Bill Declaring All Same-Sex Marriages 'Null and Void'

Bill Could Cost Taxpayers $1 Million to Defend in Court, and a Nationwide Boycott Costing Billions if Signed Into Law

22 months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, North Carolina Republican lawmakers have filed a bill nullifying all marriages between people of the same-sex. The bill, which is unconstitutional, falsely invokes the 10th Amendment and claims the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over marriage. It also falsely claims the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the Christian Bible.

The "Uphold Historical Marriage Act," known as HB780, says, "the ruling of the United States Supreme Court not only exceeds the authority of the Court relative to the State of North Carolina and a vote of the People of the State on an issue pertaining solely to the State of North Carolina and the People of North Carolina but also exceeds the authority of the Court relative to the decree of Almighty God."

It then quotes Genesis 2:24, "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

HB780 "declares that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court of 2015 is null and void in the State of North Carolina." It also declares that marriages "whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina."

View image on Twitter

 Follow

Dominic Holden 

✔@dominicholden

JUST IN: Republicans in North Carolina legislature file HB780 to defy Supreme Court's marriage ruling — says same-sex marriages “not valid."

4:59 PM - 11 Apr 2017

 
•  1,6781,678 Retweets
 
•  690690 likes

The bill's primary sponsors are (photos, in order, above,) Rep. Larry Pittman, Rep. Michael Speciale, and Rep. Carl Ford.

Were the bill ever to become law, it would be declared unconstitutional, and the taxpayers in the State of North Carolina would have to pay court and attorneys fees, which easily could reach more than a million dollars.

The good citizens of the Tar Heel State might want to ask their elected officials, whose salaries, expenses, and generous per-diems they pay, how they have time to engage in such hate-filled and dangerous excursions.

NCRM spoke with Rep. Ford's office by phone and was told he was unavailable, they are aware of the bill, and could not offer comment.

AUSTRALIA: Major Companies Launch “Acceptance Ring” Campaign For Marriage Equality

Some of the country’s biggest businesses have upped the ante in the crusade for marriage equality by asking Australians to wear a specially designed “acceptance ring” until same-sex marriage is legalised. Led by accommodation provider Airbnb and supported by Qantas, ANZ, Fairfax Media and Foxtel, the Until We Belong campaign has been billed as the “most public declaration for marriage equality” so far.

The initiative calls on Aus­tralians to signal their support for same-sex couples by committing to wearing the ring, created by designer Marc Newson. Airbnb Australia country manager Sam McDonagh said the campaign would involve the distribution of “hundreds of thousands” of the distinctive black metal rings to its hosts and guests, business partners and “key influencers”.

Qantas staff and cabin crew would wear them, he said, while Google Australia has also provided rings for its 1300 staff to wear. “Our goal is to build ­momentum around the issue of marriage equality and spark those conversations about ­acceptance,” Mr McDonagh said. The move is likely to fire up the debate about the role of corporations as lobbyists for contentious social causes, which has attracted criticism from some conservative politicians and religious leaders in light of the recent public hounding of brewer Coopers into pledging support for Australian Marriage Equality.

Videos below:

OKLAHOMA: Court Awards $300K In Legal Fees To Attorneys In Marriage Case

So far various federal courts around the country have ordered states to pay about $5M in legal fees to the attorneys representing winning same-sex marriage plaintiffs. On Thursday that amount grew in Oklahoma. Via Tulsa World: 

Tulsa County will be on the hook for nearly $300,000 in attorney fees that were incurred during its unsuccessful defense of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern awarded attorneys for a lesbian couple $298,742.77 in fees and costs related to the county’s appeal of a lower court ruling. Kern found that the attorneys for Mary and Sharon Bishop-Baldwin “expended reasonable hours on the appeal” and “exercised sound billing judgment.” Three attorneys for the couple had requested $368,827 in attorney fees and $1,942 in costs. Attorneys for Tulsa County argued that just over $108,000 was a more appropriate amount for the plaintiffs’ attorneys.Tulsa County was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. Earlier this year the state GOP failed to advance a bill that would require the state government to reimburse any Oklahoma county for legal fees incurred in defense of the state constitution.

Brian Brown says that the losers should not pay: "This is an outrageous ruling. A rush to judgment on a case that could very well be reversed by the US Supreme Court. We encourage the state not to pay anything until we get a ruling on the underlying issue from the US Supreme Court. Even then, it is wrong to reward activists for challenging a validly enacted constitutional amendment."

CHRISTINE M. FLOWERS: People have spoken and Supreme Court should listen

John Roberts cut through the semantics and the florid prose about "dignity" when he said this to one of the attorneys arguing in favor of same-sex marriage: "You're not seeking to join the institution. You're seeking to change what the institution is."

And there, my friends, you have the critical question: is marriage a large-tent institution that embraces many different variations of "devotion" (and therefore gays and lesbians are only asking to enter under the tent,) or is it a solemn petrified edifice that must be remodeled, stone by stone, to accommodate the wishes of a newly-empowered minority.

When you put it that way, you understand what is really at stake.

It's common to hear opponents of same-sex marriage described as bigots, religious zealots or inhabitants of the "wrong side of history," as if we were walled up behind Check Point Charlie in East Berlin. There is this sense of inevitability on the part of gay marriage advocates, to the point that they can sometimes even show sympathy for those of us who insist on traditional definitions. I've had conversations where my enlightened interlocutor will smile sadly, tilt her head as if dealing with a confused child and figuratively pat me on the head as if I were Cindy Lou Who and she was sending me off to my bigoted bed with a glass of milk.

The attendant sigh says "she'll learn."

Actually, "she" has been learning a lot of things lately, particularly in the wake of the conscience law controversy in Indiana last month. Hopefully, the justices on the high court have been studying up as well, particularly when it comes to that crash course in societal bullying.

John Roberts wasn't explicit, but it's clear he was referring to what happened in his native Hoosier state when he observed that gay and lesbian couples are trying to impose their conception of marriage on a pre-existing institution, changing it beyond recognition. Attorney General Donald Verilli also realized what was happening when, in response to a question about what impact the universal legalization of gay marriage would have on a religious school's right to deny teacher housing to a gay couple, he delivered the equivalent of a sophisticated "uh, um" and failed to provide a legitimate answer.

That's what usually happens when marriage equality advocates are faced with the blunt question: "What do you do if someone doesn't want to bake you a cake?" or in more general terms, how does your concept of equality square with someone else's sense of freedom?

Before the Indiana dust up, proponents of same-sex marriage tried to make it seem as if legalization of these unions was simply a matter of due process and equal protection, or as Justice Anthony Kennedy likes to trill in his Rod McKuen-like majority decisions, "dignity." But when it comes to the dignity of people who object to gay unions on religious or moral grounds, they are dismissed as bigots. The rainbow flags come out, CNN marches into the street to find the most aggrieved and photogenic victims and, poof!, a governor is reduced to blathering apologies about offending a minority whose political clout far outweighs its size.

I'm actually glad this happened so close in time to these critical oral arguments on same-sex marriage, because it provides a blueprint for the justices of how we arrived at the point where two men marrying each other became an undeniable civil right, and speaking out against it became hate speech.

This is the classic modus operandi of those who seek change by all costs, even through intimidation. The advocates for marriage equality (clever term) are well-versed in that practice which was perfected by feminists of the Roe v. Wade era. They could not find an actual "right" to abortion in the constitution, and so they switched their focus and started talking about the "dignity" of women while at the same time, minimizing the dignity of the unborn child. At some level, it was a fabulous success. Abortion became legal at a national level.

But anyone who has been a warrior on the bloody battlefield of abortion rights over the past four decades knows how Roe kept the debate alive, because we who think judges shouldn't usurp the voice of the people on these crucial issues refused to go gentle into that nihilistic night.

I'm predicting that will be the case if the justices rule in favor of the same sex advocates. Frankly, if you asked a majority of Americans, they'd have no problem with giving same sex couples all of the legal rights and privileges (and headaches) conveyed by traditional marriage. By nature, we tend to be an egalitarian population that rewards fair dealing.

But we don't like to be told by a few men and women in black robes that, because we disagree with the frenetic wave of change orchestrated by a motivated minority, we are bigots. As Justice Roberts said, "People feel very differently about something if they have the chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."

If the high court chooses to reward the loudest voices with a right that simply does not exist at either common law or in the reverent folds of the constitutional fabric, they can rest assured that there will be battles waged by those who refuse to capitulate in someone else's version of "dignity."

They could be people of faith. They could be atheists with a devotion to constitutional integrity. Or they could simply be people who prefer the stability of a great stone edifice to the wind-whipped flimsiness of a fragile tent.

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer and columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News. Readers may send her email at cflowers1961@gmail.com.

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2015/05/02/6205471/christine-m-flowers-people-have.html?fb_action_ids=10205669671455006&fb_action_types=og.comments#storylink=cpy

SCOTUS Denies Request from Alabama Officials to Block Gay Marriages; Weddings to Begin Imminently

The Supreme Court has denied a request for an extension of the stay of the 11th Circuit ruling striking down the state's gay marriage ban which expires this morning.

The SCOTUS vote was 7-2 with Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

Gay couples are already lining up at courthouses around Alabama and weddings will begin imminently.

Amazing Gay Marriage Speech Goes Viral (Maureen Walsh)

Washington State Rep. Maureen Walsh (a Republican) gave a passionate speech defending marriage equality that's going viral. Is gay marriage coming to Washington? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

N.C. GOP lawmakers want Supreme Court reinstate same-sex marriage ban

North Carolina legislative leaders say they’ll ask the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly hear their appeal seeking to reverse lower-court rulings that legalized gay marriage in the state.

Senate leader Phil Berger and likely House Speaker Tim Moore said Thursday the two Republicans will ask the nation’s highest court to hear the North Carolina case before a lower appeals court in Richmond, Virginia.

Federal judges in Greensboro and Asheville ruled in October that the state constitution’s amendment banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The rulings came after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case that overturned Virginia’s similar ban.

Berger and former House Speaker Thom Tillis were allowed by the Greensboro federal judge to intervene. Attorney General Roy Cooper said all potential legal defenses are exhausted.

NOM's Brian Brown: Florida Should Ignore Gay Marriage Ruling

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), has called on Florida officials to ignore a federal judge's ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.

On Tuesday, gay couples throughout Florida began exchanging vows as it became the 36th state where gay couples can marry.

Brown called the ruling – whose implementation the Supreme Court refused to stop – “illegitimate.” and called on officials to turn away gay couples wishing to marry.

“It is simply illegitimate for the opinion of a federal district judge to trump the decision of millions of Floridians and attempt to redefine marriage in violation of Federal law,” Brown said in a blog post. “Federal judges are acting as if the US Supreme Court has ordered same-sex marriage to be imposed, but in reality the Court has ruled that states have the right to define marriage. We demand that the US Supreme Court act immediately to review the pending marriage case before them and swiftly reaffirm that states have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The US Supreme Court has never ruled that traditional marriage is unconstitutional. In fact, they have specifically ruled that states have the right to define marriage.”

“It is a travesty of justice that states are allowing federal judges to single-handedly decide the laws of marriage. Florida officials should not go along with this illegitimate decree and should demand that state and local officials continue to enforce the marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2008,” he added.

The Day Anita Cried

Marriages of gay couples began in the state of Florida yesterday, leaving only 14 American states that do not permit gays to marry.

70% of Americans now live in states in which “gay marriage” is legal.

A judge in Florida recently struck down the state’s gay marriage ban. And in spite of the best efforts of Republican politicians, the civil rights victory refused to be overturned.

It’s been an amazing 18 months since the Supreme Court issued its momentous decision in US v. Windsor, which opened the door for gay marriage victories nationwide.

As the Washington Post notes, “when the court heard oral arguments about California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, only nine states and the District allowed such unions.”

Nine states. Now we have 36 states (and DC). That’s a landslide.

The victory in Florida is an especially exciting win for gay rights advocates as Florida was the scene of one of the most bitter battles in American gay rights history, when singer and former Florida orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant organized the successful repeal of Dade County, Florida’s new ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. After winning in Florida, Bryant then went national, and led several battles across the country against gay rights.

I’ll let Ms. Bryant speak for herself:

“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children” and “If gays are granted rights, next we’ll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters.”

In response, gay rights advocates launched a nationwide boycott of Florida orange juice. Bryant was also famously hit by a pie in the face during an anti-gay press conference in Iowa in 1977:

So Anita, this month is for you.

Iconic jeweler Tiffany & Co. features first same-sex engagement ring ad campaign

For the first time, iconic jeweler Tiffany & Co. is featuring a same-sex couple in an engagement rings advertising campaign — and the two men featured are not professional models, but a real-life New York City couple sitting outside of their real New York apartment.

Tiffany joins an array of businesses that have tacitly expressed support for marriage equality through recent advertising campaigns.

“Nowadays, the road to marriage is no longer linear, and true love can happen more than once with love stories coming in a variety of forms,” said Linda Buckley, Tiffany & Co. VP of North American PR, in a statement to ELLE.com.

The ad copy reads:

“Will you promise to never stop completing my sentences or singing off-key, which I’m afraid you do often? And will you let today be the first sentence of one long story that never, ever ends?”

Tiffany & Co. didn’t release the names the couple.

The campaign comes on the heels of a discrimination suit brought against another iconic retailer — Saks Fifth Avenue — by a transgender employee, in which Saks argued that transgender individuals are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One of my Facebook friends posted, when visiting Tiffany & Co. on Fifth Ave. just over a year ago, were greeted with warmth and grace. When a passerby asked "Is gay marriage recognized in your state?" the brilliant Tiffany Representative said "It's recognized by a higher authority than the government. It's recognized by Tiffany's."

GOV. BUTCH OTTER ASKS SCOTUS TO DELAY MARRIAGE CONSIDERATION UNTIL IT HEARS FROM IDAHO

Idaho Governor Butch Otter filed an amicus brief today asking the U.S. Supreme Court to delay consideration of same-sex marriage until it hears from Idaho as he believes the case would be the "best vehicle" by which the Court could resolve “the marriage-litigation wave in all respects," theSpokesman-Review reports:

Otter lists several reasons why he thinks Idaho’s case is the “best vehicle” for the whole same-sex marriage issue to be decided. Among them: Idaho’s includes both the question of in-state marriages and recognition of out-of-state marriages; it would test the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ application of a heightened standard of scrutiny for discrimination based on sexual orientation; it brings up religious liberty issues; and Idaho officials, unlike those in many states, have mounted a vigorous defense of their ban on gay marriage.

Otter’s legal brief cites “the enormous societal risks accompanying a genderless-marriage regime,” and says, “Common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents.”

Attorneys Gene Schaerr and Tom Perry, lawyers for Otter, filed the brief in five marriage cases before the Supreme Court challenging rulings by the U.S. Appeals Court for the SixthCircuit (Idaho is in the Ninth Circuit).

SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston explains:

It was in that form because Idaho has not formally appealed to the Justices, while it awaits the rehearing plea it has pending at the Ninth Circuit.

Adding:

As of now, the Court has five pending cases on the same-sex marriage issue. Four are petitions challenging a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, upholding marriage bans in four states (Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky). The fifth case is from Louisiana, seeking review of a federal judge’s ruling upholding a ban in that state. 

The Louisiana case is now scheduled for the Justices’ first look at the next Conference, on January 9, according to a scheduling note Wednesday on the Court’s electronic docket. That docket also indicated that the four petitions from the Sixth Circuit are being handled as a group, although they have not yet been distributed to the Justices. There is one more date on which the cases could be sent to the Justices for consideration on January 9: next Tuesday.

Otter wants the Court to wait for Idaho's appeal before deciding which cases to hear, and then add Idaho's case to the review process.

Salt Lake Tribune Names Marriage Plaintiffs "Utahns Of The Year"

Via the Salt Lake Tribune:

These six people put their names to the lawsuit challenging Amendment 3. They stood up, stood together and helped history along. Through 2014, they rode the legal roller coaster — to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Shelby’s ruling, and onto the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a stay on the ruling. In October, the high court declined to hear appeals from Utah and four other states. In essence, the denial made same-sex marriage legal in those states. Because of these Utah plaintiffs — who bravely made public their most private lives — the state took an unlikely position among the vanguard in the biggest civil-rights movement of the day. Forever, their names will be associated with a tidal wave of change that swept the country. For that, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, Karen Archer and Kate Call, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge are The Salt Lake Tribune Utahns of the Year.

Cure Homophobia With This One Weird Trick!

On Friday, the journal Science published a buzzy new study suggesting that homophobia is more of a minor, curable malady than a chronic illness. For the study, researchers sent gay and straight canvassers into strongly anti-gay neighborhoods and directed them to converse with residents for about 20 minutes about why marriage equality mattered to them. The result: Residents’ support for gay equality increased considerably—and those residents who spoke with gay canvassers retained their pro-equality beliefs nine months 

This “transmission of support for gay equality” endured only when residents spoke with gay canvassers, however—straight canvassers yielded an initial pro-equality boost but failed to produce long-lasting effects. The study, then, essentially reinforces an intuition that the LGBTQ community has held for decades: When homophobes experience compassionate, individualized interaction with a gay person, they tend to shed their homophobia.

It’s nice to have a scientific study confirm what so many gay people already suspected. But the Science piece comes at a tricky moment for what my colleague J. Bryan Lowder calls the “ ‘hearts and minds’ model of social change.” Ever since gay marriage started winning at the ballot box, our more faint-hearted allies haveencouraged gay people to be “tolerant” of those who hate us and vote against our rights. We should, these (usually straight) people scold, let our opponents denigrate and humiliate us all they want, without ever raising our voices or asserting our dignity. Then, once we’ve been thoroughly debased and degraded, we should gingerly plead with those who despise us to please, please despise us just a little bit less.

Like Lowder, I think this advice—especially coming from self-described “allies” who’ve never experienced real prejudice in their lives—is profoundly condescending and exasperating. And yet, looking at the Science study, I also wonder whether it might contain a kernel of truth. Gay people having nonconfrontational, nonjudgmental confabulations with homophobes really does appear to be the single most effective way to further the cause of equality. It would seem, then, that gays have something of a duty to engage with people who, deep in their hearts, believe we deserve second-class citizenship.

By Letting Weddings Start In Florida, The Supreme Court Just Made It Clear That Marriage Equality Is A Done Deal

On the surface, it seems like just one more piece of really good news. On Friday night, the Supreme Court refused to stop marriage equality in Florida, which means that weddings can start on Jan. 6. That’s a big deal for a lot of reasons: Florida is one of the most populous states without marriage equality, same-sex marriage is now officially in place in the South (following the Carolinas, and the inevitability of marriage equality is now stronger than ever. It’s also a thumb in the eye for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, the thrice-married Republican who has made a career out of blocking marriage equality (and concomitantly making incredibly dopey statements).

But the ruling goes far beyond Florida. The Supreme Court just essentially signaled that marriage equality is a settled issue.

In this case, at issue before the court was a request to put a hold on the awesome ruling by Judge Robert Hinkle that struck down Florida’s marriage ban. Usually, such requests are submitted to the Supreme Court justice responsible for the region. This time, however, the entire court considered the request for a stay. And in a telling action, only two justices–Antonin Scalia (of course) and Clarence Thomas–would have taken the request.

That means seven justices let marriage equality take effect in Florida, including two–Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito–who dissented from the Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Roberts and Alito saw the request as a narrow legal issue that the Court had no reason to get involved with. But in general they’re not especially willing to place legal reasoning above political ideology. Apparently, they don’t object to marriage equality on legal principle, or at least not enough to try to stop it in its tracks. If they wanted to take a stand, this would have been the chance. Instead, they took a pass.

Which is a pretty strong signal that the majority feels that the issue is largely settled. Because there are conflicting rulings, the Court will have to weigh in on the issue at some point. They have a chance to take it up again next month, having punted earlier this fall. 

But there can be little doubt what the ultimate ruling will be, particularly after the Florida ruling. There are only 14 states remaining now that ban marriage equality (although marriage is on hold in six states due to appeals). By the time the Supreme Court finally weighs in, it will be anti-climactic.

Even Pam Bondi knows when she’s defeated. In a statement she said she won’t try to stop marriages from starting. Heaven knows, she’s started a few of her own already.

TEXAS TEEN WITH TWO MOMS DELIVERS ROUSING SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Freedom To Marry President Evan Wolfson was joined by Texas same-sex plaintiff couples fora marriage town hall at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin on Monday night. 

But Mason Marriott-Voss, a 16-year-old from Austin with two moms, stole the show with a rousing two-minute speech about the importance of bringing marriage equality to the Lone Star State. 

Marriott-Voss (shown with his family above) said when his two moms had him, same-sex marriage wasn't legal anywhere in the US, adding that a lot has changed, "but not here in Texas." 

"There are still people who stubbornly refuse to recognize family even when it's right in front of them," he said. "Some people are still genuinely concerned that my parents' love could harm tradition or erode society, maybe even threaten existing marriages."

Marriott-Voss talked about how ordinary his family is — his stepsister is a straight-A student who likes Harry Potter and his younger brother is wearing a Yoda-Santa hat every day in December in hopes that it will bring a white Christmas to Austin. 

"We share the same values and beliefs as everyone else, the same normal struggles and triumphs, except we are denied the basic dignity of being officially respected as the family that we are," Marriott-Voss said. "These anti-family laws create a raw deal for kids like me. Marriage is supposed to be a very important issue, but these laws cause children to be raised across the country in homes without it. The most important thing I want you to take away from me today, is that it's not our families that need to change, it's Texas." 

Freedom To Marry's Wolfson said people like Marriott-Voss continuing to tell their families' stories will be key to bringing same-sex marriage to Texas and the other 14 states where it's still banned.

Lower rate of divorce for same-sex couples than straight couples, says US study

New research conducted by the Williams Institute not only are same-sex couples generally as good as or better at parenting than their straight counterparts as studies have shown, a new study says they are no worse or even better at marriage.

New research conducted by the Williams Institute, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has found that same-sex couples end their marriages at a lower rate than straight couples.

On average, 1.1 percent of same-sex couples end their marriages each year (1.6 percent of couples if you include other legal statuses like domestic partnerships and civil unions), while the rate of divorce in straight couples is about 2 percent, according to the LGBT policy and research center.

It also found that lesbian couples account for more of the newly legal unions than gay male couples.

Looking at the figures from 23 states in the US that allow same-sex couples to enter into registered relationships, researchers found that women comprise a significantly higher percentage of couples who had formalized their relationship although female couples account for 51 percent of all same-sex couples in the US.

In states that recognize same-sex marriage, on average 62 percent of same-sex couples who married were women. In states that recognize civil unions and partnerships, lesbian couples make up 64 percent of all same-sex couples.

The report, which was authored by Williams Distinguished Scholar M.V. Lee Badgett and senior counsel Christy Mallory, further noted that the figure is 'a much higher proportion than would be expected.'

When a Homophobic Group Asked for Stories of Strong Marriages, These Gay Couples Were Happy to Oblige

The National Organization for Marriage, one of the most visible and insistent antigay marriage groups in the country, really should have known better when it put out a call on Facebook asking people to tag and describe “a couple in your life who have a strong, lasting marriage that inspires you” and to include the hashtag #1m1w, “meaning one man, one woman.”

NOM was expecting responses describing how marriages between a man and a woman are superior to same-sex unions, but what it got were cute shout-outs to and from gay couples.

So @NOMupdate asked for inspiring marriage stories. Bet some of you have a few to share :) http://t.co/roXv2Xgtx3 #1m1w #equality
— Justin McLachlan (@justinmclachlan) December 10, 2014

The thread is still going, and while it’s not the most civil discussion on social media, most of the top comments are sweet stories of gay and lesbian romance.

Tony Perkins On Marriage: We're Several Touchdowns Behind, But We'll Win

Hate group leader Tony Perkins says that the opponents of same-sex marriage have been reinvigorated by last month's Vatican meeting, where the Pope's message was "like getting a halftime pep talk in the locker room." Go for the Hail Mary!