You know, they do this so often I should just create a template for this kind of response.

Anyway, they’re panicking about Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional. As paid professionals they ought to realize the 9th Circuit ruling could only apply to states that:

Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. But the Court’s decision is narrow and limited. Here’s a key quote from page 47 of the decision:

We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to [...]]]> Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. But the Court’s decision is narrow and limited. Here’s a key quote from page 47 of the decision:

We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. Further, we express no view on those questions.

In other words, that Court has ruled that while this particular ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, it declines to rule that all bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. How can that be?

The 9th Circuit decision rests on two key factors:

• California has a domestic partnership law that grants same-sex couples all the state-level benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
• Prop 8 eliminated an existing right, rather than ruling out a right that had not yet been granted.

The Court used these facts in their decision:

Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, and this action amounts to a distinct constitutional violation because the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason. Romer, 517 U.S. at 634-35.

In other words the 9th Circuit relied on a Supreme Court precedent, Romer v. Evans, which dealt with a law that took away an existing right. Thus, the 9th Court’s decision cannot be applied to states unless they are eliminating an existing right of same-sex couples to marry.

In addition, the 9th Circuit used California’s willingness to adopt a comprehensive domestic partnership law as evidence that there is no “legitimate reason” for taking away the right to marry. As the decision’s introduction said:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

But why can the Court say that this is Prop 8′s only effect? Because California’s domestic partnership law is so broad, grants such a full array of rights, and is still in effect. Prop 8, therefore, has no practical purpose and merely:

…enacts nothing more or less than a judgment about the worth and dignity of gays and lesbisan as a class.

Just as a “desire to harm…cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest” Morena, 413 U.S. at 534, neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of people.

An existing comprehensive domestic partnership law, and the removal of an existing right: These two key factors don’t apply to most states, and thus the reasoning behind the Court’s decision (and, by extension, the decision itself) doesn’t either.

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws [...]]]> From the wonderful beginning of the 9th Court’s decision:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

Here’s a fuller version:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition X had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.

All that Proposition X accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of “marriage,” which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

Hoo — fuckin’– ray.

Ha! No, just kidding. He lied. Here it is:

If the Washington Legislature wants to change the definition of marriage, which 57% of [...]]]> On January 26, Brian Brown announced the results of a survey conducted by NOM in Washington state. He spoke with the grace and clarity befitting a man devoting his life to a moral cause.

Ha! No, just kidding. He lied. Here it is:

If the Washington Legislature wants to change the definition of marriage, which 57% of voters oppose, NOM calls on them to give this decision to voters.

Sorry, but NOM’s poll says that 57% don’t think a law permtting same-sex marriage is necessary, given the state’s civil union law. When it comes to actual opposition, though, only 49% said they would vote against it. (42% would vote for equality, while 12% don’t know.)

Funny thing:  When Brian made his announcement, NOM didn’t release the survey for us to read. Jeremy Hooper over at NOMExposed dinged them for this at the time. As it happens, NOM’s updated press release now links to the document, but Google Cache indicates this wasn’t always the case (though Google Cache might be showing the new version by now).

In other words, Brian Brown distorted the results of his own survey on a day when we couldn’t check the honor of his word. It’s hard to blame him. One of NOM’s consistent talking points is that  a clear majority of voters oppose marriage equality, so any number under 51% embarrasses them.

Still, even the 49-42 sentiment against us is odd. Prior polls found the numbers going 47-46 or even 54-35 in our favor. So how did NOM get its results?

That turns out to be an interesting lesson in “priming.”

You can rig a poll by priming your respondent with a series of leading questions. For instance, this is how the poll introduces the idea of marriage equality:

As you probably know, since 2010 Washington has had a civil union law which gives gay couples all the legal rights of married couples. Now some people want to pass a new law, which changes the definition of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and woman, but between any two people. Do you feel it is necessary or not necessary to pass now a new law which changes the definition of marriage in this way?

57% said the law is not necessary. This is where Brian gets his “57% of voters oppose” falsehood, even though the question isn’t asking that.

Back to priming, though. Check out a few things. NOM uses “changes the definition of marriage” twice — language they promote as as good PR for their side. Also the long, confusing, syntactically tortured question makes it sound like marriage would be “no longer between a man and a woman.”

Beyond that, though, the question lies when it says the law would allow marriage “between any two people.” They didn’t even bother to say “between any two adults“! Lord, I’d oppose that: I don’t want a 50-year-old woman marrying her 4-year-old neighbor. You can bet this distortion — this outright lie — is meant to trigger the incest and pedophilia fears that anti-gay forces work so hard to implant.

The survey’s next question:

Who do you think should decide what the definition of marriage is in Washington state: should it be defined by the courts, or should it be defined by the state legislature, or should it be defined by the voters of the state?

Most folks who passed civics class understand that the legislature exists to, well, legislate. But with this question, NOM plants the notion that passing a law is not what legislators are supposed to do.

Next up:

If you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her that passing a new which charges [sic] the definition of marriage is something you want the state legislature to work on at this time, or would you tell him or her that the state legislature should work on solving other problems?

As if they can’t do both. The question sets up a pair of false alternatives, and does so with loaded language.

Finally, we get to the key question:

And if you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her to vote for this new law which changes the definition of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a woman but between any two people, or to vote against this change?

Loaded and dishonest — they might as well have asked:

Can you seriously tell me you think the state legislature should drop everything they’re doing to grab power from the people and pass an unnecessary law that would allow a creepy old man to marry his sweet and trusting grandson?

Priming works. You can’t fool all the people all the time, but partisan pollsters make a science of it. In this case, it’s heavy-handed to the point of hilarity.

Yet with all that, NOM was only able to get 49% of the respondents to oppose same-sex marriage. And it forced Brian Brown to tell what’s clearly a lie while hiding the data that would expose him as a fraud.

In other words, business as usual for NOM.

You wouldn’t call him a thief, exactly. How about this, though:

I just got a fundraising email (complete with “Donate Now” button) from Brian Brown at NOM. He writes:

Last April, the Navy issued new “sensitivity training” guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex [...]]]> What do you call someone who gets money from people by telling them lies?

You wouldn’t call him a thief, exactly. How about this, though:

• Con man
• Swindler
• Cheat
• Charlatan
• Bilker
• Crook

I just got a fundraising email (complete with “Donate Now” button) from Brian Brown at NOM. He writes:

Last April, the Navy issued new “sensitivity training” guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Thanks to leadership from Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Todd Akin, the Navy backed down and rescinded the guidelines.

See that verb? The one Brown italicized? And bolded?

It’s a lie.

Here’s what those (now-rescinded) guidelines said:

Regarding chaplain participation, consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage:  if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of a state which permits same-sex marriage; and if the chaplain is, according to applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages.

No chaplain was required to do anything involving same-sex marriage. It took me five minutes to confirm that. It’s Brian Brown’s job to know that.

I don’t know why this makes me so angry. It certainly isn’t NOM’s first lie. I’m starting to think that NOM’s biggest victims aren’t gays and lesbians — we’ll win this eventually, no matter what NOM does. No, NOM’s biggest victims are its own supporters, who are being bilked out of their money.

This falsehood is now up on NOM’s blog, where I’m banned from commenting. I invite you — ask you, beg you, beseech you — to go there and point out the truth to NOM’s readers. They won’t believe it (they might not even get to see it!), but that doesn’t matter: there’s something to be said for telling the truth just for the sake of telling the truth.

Something Brian Brown will never understand.

Once again I’ll be doing the annual AIDS/LifeCycle — the 580-mile, 7-day bicycle ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to raise money for AIDS prevention and research.

It starts on June 3th. This will be my sixth ride. It’ll be the second time for my partner Will.

Can you help? If you find [...]]]>

Mid-way through 2010's ride

Once again I’ll be doing the annual AIDS/LifeCycle — the 580-mile, 7-day bicycle ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles to raise money for AIDS prevention and research.

It starts on June 3th. This will be my sixth ride. It’ll be the second time for my partner Will.

Can you help? If you find this blog even mildly useful or enjoyable, I’d sure appreciate it. Even just a couple bucks would be great (though 3-figure donations are more than welcome, too!).

You can support me by following this link. Or, if you want to help out Will’s efforts (because you feel sympathy for his being being partnered with an opinionated, blow-hard blogger like me), you can do that here.

Thanks, thanks, and…thanks!

PS. For those of you awaiting the result of my Demon Test, I promise you they’re coming? (The results, not the demons.)

Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery

The basis for their outrage? A letter written by nominee Bruce Harris in 2009 to State [...]]]> NOM’s blog has a new post up, with its most outrageously outraged headline ever, about NJ Gov. Christie nominating an openly gay man to the state Supreme Court:

Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery

The basis for their outrage? A letter written by nominee Bruce Harris in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio about marriage equality:

When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”

I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates—and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.

Maggie Gallagher surprised me by calling this letter “intemperate” in the National Review. Really? The only problem mistake I saw was the comma after “slavery” (this is why no one invites me to parties). It wasn’t until NOMblog picked up the story that I saw her objection.

But is it valid? Does Harris equate Christianity and slavery? Of course not.

The only link between slavery and Christianity in Harris’s letter is a factual parenthetical that is factual which factually points out that the Bible in fact factually provides for slavery. Which is a fact. Harris is just pointing out something that theologians have been grappling with for centuries, including many who created Christian arguments against slavery.  It’s no crime merely to point out that these verses exist (or to warn against a glibly literal application of the Book to public policy). In fact, it’s anti-Biblical to pretend the verses aren’t there.

Harris’s letter does three simple things:

1. It cautions against using tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
2. It cautions, on Constitutional grounds, against using religion as an argument against marriage equality.
3. It politely requests information on what other grounds the good Senator might be opposing marriage equality.

Bruce Harris’s letter is clear, temperate, factual attempt to point out some truths and open an honest dialog. Maybe that’s why Maggie and NOM hate it so.

H/T to Brad Parr.

Are two men pledged in a sexual union really a marriage?

Personally I’d answer, No.

Actually, I’d blink [...]]]> I got a fundraising email from Maggie Gallagher the other day. It’s unbelievably long (as in, I can’t believe she expects people to read this whole thing). One sentence jumped out at me before I gave up on the piece.

Are two men pledged in a sexual union really a marriage?

Personally I’d answer, No.

Actually, I’d blink twice, tilt my head, squint quizzically, and then answer, No. Mostly because I don’t know many men who have pledged to each other in a merely sexual relationship.

On the other hand, suppose Maggie had asked:

Are two men in romantic relationship — who have pledged to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, from this day forward until death does them part — in a marriage?

I’d answer, Of course.

But of course, Maggie didn’t write that. She knows it would devastate her argument. She knows the only way she can win is to deny that such a commitment is even possible between two men. That’s why NOM’s website contains this false and dehumanizing assertion:

Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.

‘Cause you see, two men can’t feel that kind of love. Not for each other. Not for their kids.

Maggie’s key strategy here is denial of reality. We see the same thing in different words from NOM’s resident intellectual (God help them) Jennifer Roback Morse, who claims marriage equality will reduce the institution to nothing more than a “registry of friendships.”

Again: denial of reality. And it truly is offensive. Compare it to statements like these:

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of two white people for each other and their children.

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of two non-Jews for each other and their children.

• But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of Gringich and his woman-of-the-moment for each other and their children.

Well, perhaps that last item doesn’t belong. But those first two statements are no less offensive than what NOM wrote about gay and lesbian relationships.

Okay, that last bit was kind of a tangent. My real point here is that our opponents resort to this rhetorical strategy all the time. We need to point out that it’s not just false, but self-defeating. Not just wrong, but devastating to their own argument. We need to Gingrich ourselves up (rhetorically, not maritally), stop playing defense, and turn their words against them. We need to say:

No. It’s not just a sexual union. It’s not just a friendship. And if you can’t make your case by calling things what they are, then you don’t have a case at all.