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.

The bill is extraordinary in [...]]]> Same-sex marriage is legal in New Hamshire, but state Rep. Frank Sapareto is sponsoring HR 1264, a bill to protect religious freedom. It allows businesses and employees to refuse service to anyone if it involves “solemnization, celebration, or promotion of a marriage” in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.”

The bill is extraordinary in scope. I’ve written a little skit showing what could happen if the bill passes. Imagine you’re the owner of a charming New Hampshire bed and breakfast…

Owner [walking into kitchen]: Margaret, you’ll need to fix a honeymoon dinner for Room 202.

Cook: Nope.

Owner: What?

Cook: Same-sex couple. I don’t have to help them celebrate their “marriage.”

Owner: You can’t just refuse.

Cook: HB 1264.

Owner: I’ll fire you.

Cook: HB 1264.

Owner: Dock your pay.

Cook: HB 1264.

[Bellhop enters]

Bellhop: Room 203 wants a cheese platter.

Cook: Nope. Interracial couple. Nasty.

Owner: That’s not even a religious belief!

Cook: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Owner [to Bellhop]: Did you take up Room 201’s luggage?

Bellhop: Nope. Saw birth control pills in her bag. Not a real marriage.

Owner: What the –

Bellhop: HB 1264.

Owner: Room 205’s stuff?

Bellhop: Catholic and a Baptist, married by a judge. HB 1264.

 [Maid enters]

Owner: Valorie, thank god! Everyone’s gone nuts. I’ll need you to –

Maid: Nope.

Owner: You don’t even know what it is!

Maid: I’m a Shaker. We don’t believe in marriage.

Owner: We specialize in honeymoons and anniversaries — that’s all we do!

Maid [kicking off shoes and picking up magazine]: Guess I’ll have lots of down time.

Owner [red-faced]: I’ll –

Maid: HB 1264.

Owner: This is crazy!

Bellhop: HB 1264.

Owner: You’re all –

Cook: HB 1264.

Owner: I’m paying you people!!

Cook, maid, and bellhop: HB 1264!

That’s a ridiculous way to choose a president, but I thought about it as I watched last night’s Republican debate, two hours likely to inspire nothing but heavy drinking. Here, then, is my rich and foamy analysis.

If you ask Mitt Romney to have a beer he’ll agree, immediately, [...]]]> Who would you rather have a beer with?

That’s a ridiculous way to choose a president, but I thought about it as I watched last night’s Republican debate, two hours likely to inspire nothing but heavy drinking. Here, then, is my rich and foamy analysis.

If you ask Mitt Romney to have a beer he’ll agree, immediately, ordering a Miller Lite after finding the bar doesn’t stock any of his 43 favorite imported microbrews. He’s the big handsome fellow in the middle of the room who surprisingly never seems to be with any friends. He’ll nod yes to everything you say and give a hearty laugh when he realizes you’ve made a joke, but he’s too busy looking for someone better to actually hear anything you’ve said.

You ask the gloomy awkward guy in a sweater vest to have a beer mostly because you feel bad for him, at which point Rick Santorum explains that beer is technically a poison, dangerous to you, your family, your community, the nation at large, and humanity in general. He starts off with the resigned voice of a man irked at having to state the obvious, and escalates to such peevish annoyance that you order six tequila shooters just to shut him out.

You don’t have to ask Ron Paul to have a beer. He’s always there, at the far end of the bar mumbling to himself and letting out quick, tiny yelps before settling back into his constant murmuring groove. When you sit too close you realize he’s now directing this stream at you. Half of it strikes you as audacious, daring, and honest, and half of it’s just batshit crazy. You slip away and he goes back to talking to his mug.

No one ever asks Newt Gingrich to have a beer. He corners you at your sister’s wedding like an amiable grouch and after his fifth beer launches into a psychodynamic analysis of your family history going back to ancient Rome. When you tell him you don’t have a great-uncle named Mike and never did, he’ll sneer and explain in detail your utter ignorance of absolutely everything before shifting into a lecture on how the role of beer in medieval courtship rituals has impacted the American electoral college.

And Barack Obama? Of course he’ll have a beer with you. He smiles past your Budweiser and orders something classy like Sam Adam or Stella Artois, but at least you’ve heard of it. Within a few minutes you can tell he thinks pretty damn highly of himself, but then he makes a joke at his own expense and it’s even kind of funny. He may never be your new best friend, but he’s more fun than the rest of the clowns in the bar, and every so often you realize he’s actually listening to you.

Plus, he’s a great sport when they crank up the karaoke machine.

Quick recap: Ocean Grove is a [...]]]> I thought I was tired of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. Anti-gays cite the group constantly as an example of how good Christian folk will be persecuted — persecuted! — by marriage equality. But the story’s back in the news and, as it turns out, demonstrates exactly the opposite.

Quick recap: Ocean Grove is a ministry that owns an open-air pavilion which it rents out for weddings and other events. They refused to let two lesbians rent the space for their civil union ceremony, and as a result, lost their property tax exemption on the pavilion.

Oh, the horror. From Ocean Grove’s lawyer:

The government should not be able to force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs.

…ignoring that the group never was forced to rent to the lesbians.

The actual facts aren’t so ominous. Ocean Grove simply applied for the wrong kind of property tax exemption. Instead of basing it on religious grounds, they applied under a state program that gave non-profit corporations a tax break on property that is “open for public use on an equal basis.” Ocean Grove obviously violated that agreement and lost the exemption on their pavilion.

But here’s the thing…

Ocean Grove later applied for a religious tax exemption on the facility, and got it, leaving them free to discriminate without paying property taxes.

And there’s more…

Ocean Grove also owns chapels, chapels that don’t permit same-sex ceremonies, and never have. Those properties are also tax exempt. Why? Because they’re part of the group’s religious work.

Ocean Grove’s religious freedom to discriminate against icky gay people was never violated. In fact, the full story actually affirms the religious right of the Religious Right to discriminate against us.

That’s not how the antigays are spinning it, though. Here’s one juicy headline:

JUDGE: FOLLOWING CHRISTIAN BELIEFS WRONG
You won’t believe latest attack on those faithful to Jesus

Wow, sounds like the judge declared that discriminating against gay people is wrong. But that’s nowhere in his decision. He simply says you can’t break your promises.

Two points:  First, Ocean Grove is a favorite anti-gay talking point, brought up over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, because it’s their best example of how marriage equality threatens their religious freedom in America. What does it say, then, when their best example completely falls apart?

Also, note that Ocean Grove isn’t protecting its religious liberty. No, it’s asking for special rights — specifically, the right to discriminate on its non-religious commercial property. Churches own lots of stuff — restaurants, shopping malls, parking lots. According to Ocean Grove’s lawyer, churches should have the special right to ignore the law, be exempt from the law, on all of it.

For years (literally!) I’ve been searching for an easy way to debunk this imaginary injustice. I think I’ve got it. Next time someone describes the loss of Ocean Grove’s tax exemption as a threat to religious liberty, you can reply:

That was only because they applied for the wrong kind of tax exemption, one that required their property to be open to everyone. Once they applied on religious grounds, they got their exemption back and now they can discriminate to their hearts’ content.

And that is the truth.

I’m a historian and I look at civilizations, I study civilizations, I read history every night. And I see it’s an attack on the family, I think it’s an attack on traditional families. That’s the way I see it.

NOM is delighted, of course, and gives their [...]]]> Maryland Senate President Mike Miller (a Democrat) on same-sex marriage:

I’m a historian and I look at civilizations, I study civilizations, I read history every night. And I see it’s an attack on the family, I think it’s an attack on traditional families. That’s the way I see it.

NOM is delighted, of course, and gives their readers a link to send him messages of support. But guess what happened when one of their devoted followers tried to use it?

Data error, indeed. Even NOM’s own computer system knows they’re wrong.