The AFA tells these lies, because they truly believe that it’s for a higher purpose, and therefore okay. That higher purpose of theirs is, imo, not simply preventing gays from marrying, but preventing straights from conducting their own lives in a manner that is not pleasing to the AFA. They believe they have a mandate from God to see to it that all American families look more like the Duggars and less like the childless dual-career couple who live down the street from many of us.

They’re worried that the legal recognition and social acceptance of gay marriage will only encourage non-Duggarlike behavior among heterosexuals. When they lie about the effects of repealing DOMA, this is what’s at stake for them. They no doubt think they’re being wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves.

What the AFA doesn’t realize is they have made their notion of the family into their God. Instead of worshipping the Golden Calf, or Him Who Walks Behind the Rows, they’re worshipping a combination of 1950s sex roles and unchecked fertility.

One more point, Timothy, I really enjoyed your very last statement, “the biggest lie of all.” I wonder if there could ever be a way to get that old German, the rat singer, to ponder that point just a bit.

I may be mistaken and it’s only my opinion… but I get the impression that Papa Ratzi thinks that God is his vicar in heaven and not the other way around.

Yes, the issue is related. But related is not the same as identical.

And, as you said, AFA’s claim does not truthfully reflect the situation. Repealing DOMA does not and cannot cause “states laws protecting marriage as between ‘one man, one woman’ [to] become null and void”.

Suppose that the Ninth Circuit decides to ignore the CA Supremes and it is decided that the Proponents have no standing and thus Prop 8 is dead. And suppose S 589 passes and DOMA is repealed.

Neither of these actions would result in the ‘no faith or credit’ clauses being declared unconstitutional. Instead, all current federal challenges to gay marriage bans would be moot adn a case or cases would have to be brought up individually against states.

Actually, DOMA is an advantage from a legal perspective. It is a law that can be challenged in court. And it has the additional advantage that states can be injured parties rather than just individuals.

Absent DOMA, we have no federal case other than Prop 8 and the eventual federal nature of state challenges.

You can argue all you like about the subtle difference between deceptive dishonest lies and deceptive dishonest spin. I take the Gertrude Stein approach to untruths.

But if AFA really believes what they preach, they have to know that God has no “spin clause” in the ninth commandment.

AFA bore witness.
It was false.
Spin class over.

All four in the article are well outside the bounds of truth, and therefore cannot qualify as mere spin.

Timothy, regarding the first point, in a way Andrew is right. But it is a technical splitting of the hairs in a way. You see S 598 is a piece of legislation that would effectively repeal DOMA.

However, in some legal circles there has been some unofficial discussions about all 31 states who have passed anti gay marriage amendments, DOMA and Prop 8. I recall reading that one individual actually referred to it as a horse race.

The argument basically being that which ever of the two, DOMA or Prop 8, reaches the Supreme Court first it will in effect render the other moot. It is assumed that if the one is declared unconstitutional then the other cannot stand on merits given the arguments that prevailed in the first.

And as such either of these two issues, if declared against the US Constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law, will render the 31 state amendments unconstitutional as well. Nothing I have read so far suggests that there is any possibility that S 598 will become law for at least 2 years out if then, but many feel that the Federal Supreme Court will hear either the Prop 8 challenge or DOMA within that time frame.

But again I point out that S 598 is a law, the Respect of Marriage Act and it will not address the constitutionality of DOMA in anyway. So Andrew, at least as I can understand it, if S 598 becomes law you are wrong, it won’t effect any of those 31 state level anti gay marriage amendments and in that respect the AFA was lying to suggest it will. But if those pesky US Supreme Court Judges get to legislating from the bench and declare Prop 8 or DOMA unconstitutional then you are right, and all bets are off.

And the AFA knows that all too well. Way back, early on they and some others actually said that they didn’t want to try to defend the federal law suit against Prop 8 because of the enormous consequences if that challenge should prevail in Federal Court. For the sake of this particular message to their supporters they are just mixing up the consequences of the two branches of government, the legislative and the judicial. Perhaps they are doing that purposely, lying just to raise money, I won’t say even though I got me some opinions about that.

One more point, Timothy, I really enjoyed your very last statement, “the biggest lie of all.” I wonder if there could ever be a way to get that old German, the rat singer, to ponder that point just a bit.

Thanks for all the hard work and input everyone. DOMA has been particularly hard on me in my life. I count the minutes until it is finally gone.

The bill is not a stand-alone. It will have DRAMATIC impact. It is currently the chief piece of legislation standing in the way of all sorts of progress (which was why it was written) — from health insurance for self-insured businesses to army barracks policy to social security to immigration to marriage portability to education policy to tax policy. It has huge legal, but also symbolic impact. With the demise of laws prohibiting sodomy, it’s the last structural nail our opponents are able to hang pretty well anything on when it comes to marriage and family policy.

This bill will lead to increased pressure on churches. It will almost certainly serve as the chief legal structure for voiding the non-portability of gay marriages between states. It will further an atmosphere in which it is intolerable for schools to ignore a diversity of family structures (it’s entirely conceivable that, as was done with Medicare dollars and hospital visitation rights, with the Senate bill passed, a White House could link school dollars to inclusion of gay families in public school curricula in order to qualify for Federal school grants, without consulting Congress). The bill has acts included in the specific wording of the bill, but it also has impacts – repercussions, as they term it – beyond those explicitly written into law — they know it, and we know it.

Again, it’s a question of spin and nuance. Maybe it’s me — I’ve been reading politispeak so long that I autotranslate as it goes into my eyeballs. To me several of the points aren’t “lies” as much as “spin” — to me there’s a subtle difference (spin is detectable manipulation, argument presented as fact, rhetorical flourishes, a tool for argument; “lie” is a harder word with a higher threshold).

Now, a very reasonable argument is that all spin has, in its core, a lie. But the problem is, we have our own spin. We choose to interpret facts in our own ways to suit our own purposes and further our own arguments all the time. Such as, for example, whether what someone else says is spin or deliberate deceit.

A reasonable disinterested 3rd party might chalk their press release up to spin.

On the other hand, a vested, interested (wise, good-looking, and well-spoken) opponent cites this as an example of a sanctimonious Bible-thumping prick spouting misleading falsehoods while missing that whole commandment about bearing false witness (okay, that’s my paraphrase – you didn’t call anyone a prick). But that is, in a way, also its own spin. Which means… (gulp)

And since I’m most allergic to hypocrisy, anything written about the sins of spin must intrinsically include a footnote (nothing more) acknowledging that, merely in order to “keep honest” and remain free of its own sanctimoniousness – whether intentional or not (sometimes honest earnestness doubles for both). I’m basically putting a lot of characters into very subtle parsing that doesn’t really warrant it lol. In short, I agree with you. Almost completely. Good job.

By the way – I live in a mixed Pastafarian household. My man still believes in His Saucy Redness, while I am an adherent of the Reformed Church of Alfredo. Have YOU been touched by his noodly appendage?

Jim, stay away from the chickens.