It's pretty sick that this statement could just as easily be about a baseball game. Doesn't he get that those numbers represent human beings? I guess not.

!

Ms. Gallagher, in celebrating her Maine victory, made the same point — that we had four years to build a grassroots organization, etc.

How about the centuries their side had to build their grass roots movement, you know, the one called "the Catholic church."

“It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.—Richard M. Nixon

@ No. 1 · YCKTR – He dosen't care.

But the takeaway here should have been: "[It's hard to see] how they convince their base to fund another campaign."

@ RichardR

Exactly, if Maggie didn't take money from the Catholics or the Mormons… we would have raised more money and won.

Just wait for the other fallout… pissed off progressive Catholics leaving the church or with holding donations.

It's ridiculous that we should have to pump money into fighting ballot initiatives that take away rights guaranteed in the US Constitution.

The bigots are right. Let's try spending our money where it can actually help our community instead of wasting it on marriage campaigns. We're up to aroudn 100 million dollars wasted on these campaigns that have done nothing to help lift up our youth, our trans, give us healthcare, etc. We need to build a stronger broader progressive movement that helps us all.

Exactly, stop wasting the money on marriage campaigns. Focus it on lobbying Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA. Give it 5 years and enough biggots will have died off, replaced by new voters who are overwhelmingly pro-marriage equality and some other middle aged adults who have learned the error of their mistakes.

The Social Conservatives and Religious Fanatics know that TIME IS THEIR ENEMY! They want us spending money now when it's much harder for us to win, so we will be less effective in the near future.

Justice Scalia, CFIF MARCH 14TH, 2005

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/fre.....speech.htm

"I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody — judges, professors, lawyers — who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a “strict constructionist,” despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction.” I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict.” I do believe, however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted."
===============================

"Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the 19th Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection Clause existed in 1920; it was adopted right after the Civil War. And you know that if the issue of the franchise for women came up today, we would not have to have a constitutional amendment. Someone would come to the Supreme Court and say, “Your Honors, in a democracy, what could be a greater denial of equal protection than denial of the franchise?” And the Court would say, “Yes! Even though it never meant it before, the Equal Protection Clause means that women have to have the vote.” But that’s not how the American people thought in 1920. In 1920, they looked at the Equal Protection Clause and said, “What does it mean?” Well, it clearly doesn’t mean that you can’t discriminate in the franchise — not only on the basis of sex, but on the basis of property ownership, on the basis of literacy. None of that is unconstitutional. And therefore, since it wasn’t unconstitutional, and we wanted it to be, we did things the good old fashioned way and adopted an amendment."

Scalia continued: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/fre…..speech.htm
"What substantive due process is is quite simple — the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way, the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process.

Brian Brown has some serious gayface. Sayin'.

"[It's hard to see] how they convince their base to fund another campaign. At this point they are 0 for 31.”
Maybe if here rights, and the rights of her "community" where put up to vote and under the threat of actually being removed she would understand how we "convince" our "base" to fund another campaign. Then again here simply opening her mouth is enough to get me to throw money at anything/ one her and her organization opposes.