Box Turtle Bulletin

Canada corrects divorce snafu

Back in January there was ten seconds of panic when it appeared that the Conservative government might seek to invalidate same-sex marriages of non-Canadians. It proved to be either confusion or naive zealousness on the part of a government lawyer and not some plot on the part of Steven Harper and the Conservative leadership to undermine marriage equality.

As it turned out, the problem arose because Canadian law allows for non-residents to marry in Canada, but not divorce. This isn’t generally a problem as divorce isn’t exactly a destination-based activity (“no honey, let’s get divorced on a beach in Hawai’i”) and tend to file papers where they live. But same-sex couples who live in locals that don’t recognize their marriages were left in a strange limbo, married in some places, single in others, but unable to divorce anywhere.

The government promised to fix the legal glitch and confirm that they do recognize Canadian weddings between same-sex foreigners. They have now submitted a bill to do that.

According to the Vancouver Sun, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stated that the bill was presented to fix “an anomaly in our civil-marriage laws” and that it would validate the marriages in question and that Canada would allow non-resident same-sex couples to divorce if the were married in Canada and unable to divorce in their place of residency.

Maryland marriage bill out of committee

Reuters:

The House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee and the Health and Government Operations Committee approved the measure 25-18 in a joint vote, a judiciary panel spokeswoman said. The measure is expected to go to the full House on Wednesday, she said.

Happy Valentines Day

I want to take a moment to thank Rev. Al Sharpton. On the issue of equality, Sharpton is not just saying the right words, he’s putting action behind them.

In Maryland, the factor holding back equality is race. Although Democrats control large majorities of both houses, there is a large black caucus. And in Maryland, black voters are not allies of the gay community and refuse to view disparities in treatment of citizens as discrimination or mistreatment under civil law as a civil rights matter unless the discrimination and mistreatment is directed towards racial minorities. The most vocal opponents of equality have been black ministers and there is about a 30 point polling difference between white Democrats and black Democrats on the issue.

Although the underpinnings of this hostility are old and have many complex contributors, anti-gay activists such as the National Organization for Marriage have deliberately played up and encouraged feelings of resentment. Falsely equating “civil rights” with “black rights”, they are deceptively seeking to suggest to black Marylanders that recognizing the equality of gay citizens is the same as unfairly grabbing what they have had to work so hard to achieve.

And the gay community is, like much of America, inadequately equipped to speak to the specific concerns of African Americans in an authentic voice. If we are to make inroads and find commonality and alliance with other communities, including the black community, we are stuck relying on the generosity of others.

And right now, Al Sharpton has stepped up and is using his voice and his reputation to lobby the Black Church and to speak to Maryland’s African American community. He is speaking not just as an activist, but as a civil rights advocate and, perhaps even more importantly, as a Baptist minister. Having someone of Sharpton’s status stand in for us may be the one ingredient that can make marriage a reality in Maryland.

I am very grateful.

Gregoire signs marriage bill

Governor Chris Gregoire has just signed the marriage bill, adding Washington to the list of US states that provide (to the extent of a state’s power) equality under the law to their gay citizens. Should there be no challenge, this law will come into effect on July June 7.

There will, however, be a challenge. The Family Policy Institute of Washington – with the full support of the Roman Catholic Church – is organizing a petition drive. Should they collect 120,577 valid voter signatures by July June 6, the vote will be stayed until it is either confirmed or rejected by the voters on their November ballot. The odds are pretty good, but not certain, that the signatures can be collected (oddly, they had difficultly in collecting signatures in 2009 to put domestic partnerships up to a vote).

New Jersey Senate passes marriage bill

The New Jersey State Senate has, as expected, passed the marriage equality bill. The vote was 24 – 16, shy of the 27 needed to override a veto. Globe:

Two Democrats and two Republicans went against their party lines in the vote. Sen. Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Red Bank, voted for allowing gay marriage. “It is my opinion that our republic was established to guarantee liberty to all people,” she said. “It is our role to protect all of the people who live in our state.”

Rep. Walsh leads with her heart

During the marriage debate, State Representative Maureen Walsh (R – 16th) said that she doesn’t wax eloquently but she is guided by her heart and her mind. And as you’ll see, that can be very powerful.

The Solicitor General impact

If you are like me, you have but the vaguest idea of what the US Solicitor General does and probably can’t name who currently holds the office.

The Solicitor General is a member of the Department of Justice and answers to the Attorney General. But the Solicitor General’s role is specific: he is the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Outside the beltway, this is not a position that is situated to get much press, nor is it one in which the issue of same-sex marriage would seem – yet – to be of interest. But the nation’s solicitor generals have been integral players in the marriage equality fight and it is, to a large extent, a fight between Republicans.

Charles Fried – Reagan 85-89 – Currently teaching at Harvard Law. Though his contribution has been limited to opining, he has certainly done his share. An advocate for civil unions, in 2007 he argued that marriage (the status) should be determined by the people not the courts. His argument is the counterpoint to our insistence that the government should not deny the social benefits of the marriage designation; he asserts that a legal body should not grant sociatal benefits. In August of 2011, he wrote denouncing DOMA and advising that the Congress should revoke it rather than have the courts broaden the question.

Same-sex marriage is allowed in six states and the District of Columbia. DOMA spells an impediment to what is a legal arrangement in those states. If on no other grounds, federalism concerns militate strongly against it. There is also a strong equal protection claim that some persons legally married in one state should not be denied federal benefits granted to others married there. Ideally, Congress would repeal DOMA before the case reaches the Court, but with the dysfunctional Congress we enjoy today that is most unlikely to happen. Thus a ruling is unavoidable and its outcome is very likely to be invalidation of DOMA. That leaves the question of how the Court will reach the result. Will it rule broadly in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or narrowly against the federal discrimination entailed by DOMA? The latter, preferable form of ruling would leave messy Full Faith and Credit issues to be sorted out. I guess that over time, those would become less acute and disappear altogether.

It was Fried’s comments to Bloomberg News that caught my interest.

“I think it’s hard to avoid,” he said in a phone interview, adding he could see five justices finding in favor of it. Still, such a ruling may be so narrowly drawn that it applies only to the California referendum at issue rather than becoming the law of the land.

“The result is that opponents of gay marriage could keep the issue alive forever,” said Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under Republican President Ronald Reagan.

Ken Starr – GHW Bush 89-93 – Best known for the Starr Report, a sensational summary of his investigation into the Clinton scandals as Independent Counsel, Starr is currently the president of Baylor University, a Baptist affiliated school in Texas.

Starr was the lead counsel in defending Proposition 8 before the California Supreme Court in the debate over whether Prop 8 was an amendment or a revision (which requires 2/3 legislative approval). Starr succeeded in having the proposition held as an amendment, but was not successful in getting the 18,000 marriages that had occurred in the marriage window to be deemed invalid.

John Roberts – GHW Bush 90 – just as acting Solicitor General for one case. Roberts is one of nine people who will ultimately determine the constitutionality of anti-gay discrimination. But he has already some history here. In March 2010, anti-gay activists sued to have the District’s marriage law put to a referendum. They asked the presiding judge to stay the law until their case was heard. Roberts declined and marriage went into effect. But even more interesting and relevant is that Roberts, while an attorney with Hogan & Hartson, did pro-bono work on Romer v. Evans, advising gay attorneys on strategy before the Supreme Court and holding moot court sessions. The Ninth Circuit ruling on Proposition 8 is significantly based on Romer.

Clinton’s three Solicitors General, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman, do not seem to have been significantly involved.

Ted Olson – GW Bush 01-04 – Ted Olson came to the nation’s attention when he squared off with David Boies before the Supreme Court to determine whether George W. Bush or Al Gore had won the presidency. The legislative effort which resulted in this week’s Ninth Circuit ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional was born when Olson picked up the phone and called Boies and suggested they join forces to have anti-gay discrimination be subjected to the constitutional scrutiny which it violates. Olson and Boies share chief counsel.

Paul Clement – GW Bush 04-08 – Clement, currently a Georgetown professor, is the special counsel hired by the Republican House Majority Leader Boehner to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court after the Justice Department refused to do so on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. So far, Clement has not had much success, has declined to offer defense in some matters, and seems to be presenting as low-key a defense as can be made.

Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of Clement’s efforts. Perhaps he is aware that DOMA has no legal leg to stand on, is an offense to federalist minded judges and an affront to civil rights minded jurists, and has few legal minds who make any attempt to defend it on anything other than ‘don’t like them gays’ grounds. But for an attorney with such a high profile, his DOMA efforts are surprisingly silent.

Gregory Garre – GW Bush 08-09 – Garre has not, to my knowledge, been directly involved in the marriage debate. However, he has made a tangential contribution. When the Christian Legal Society sued Hastings Legal College over school rules which banned anti-gay discrimination in school groups, it placed the question of religious-based objections to homosexuality before the Supreme Court. In a ruling that delighted our community, but with which I had some misgivings, the court ruled that Hastings was justified in refusing to consider religious objections to the policy. This case gives insight to the feeling of the justices as well as grounds for strategy. Garre was the attorney who successfully defended Hastings.

Elena Kagan – Obama 09-10 – Ms. Kagan will also be one of the nine jurist who determine the eventual outcome. She is considered to be a vote and a voice of support, among other things.

And the current Solicitor General is Donald Verrilli, by the way.

Rethinking tradition

For the past 134 years The Living Church has been speaking to Episcopalians – especially those of the Anglo-Catholic “high church” wing – on matters of faith. In the January 29 edition, there is a fascinating article entitled “Tradition, Novelty, and the Need for Discernment” by David Newheiser, which reinspects what tradition has to say about same-sex marriage.

Those who appreciate a scholarly and thoughtful approach will enjoy this article. Here’s a taste:

The relevant question for faithful Christians is thus not whether Paul would have affirmed homosexual marriage: on the basis of the conceptual apparatus he had available, he would have been able to grasp neither the concept homosexual nor the Nicene affirmation that the Son is “of one substance” with the Father. Even if, as is likely, he would have been alarmed on both counts, this does not settle the issue, for the force of Paul’s teaching may point toward developments that he would not have expected. Just as Athanasius argued that the teaching of Scripture recommends ways of speaking that the authors of Scripture would not have recognized, it may be that the fidelity to tradition requires new ways of thinking about the status of same-sex unions.

I don’t always find that an article changes my perspective or opens new ways of thinking. But after reading Newheiser’s piece I came away with a new understanding of tradition.

Theological responses to same-sex marriage are no more longstanding and traditional than theological responses to online dating or sexting. Tradition is more than just “doing what we did before” when there is no “before” with which to compare. Rather, the church should utilize another tradition, that of applying discernment to questions before it. And that is, indeed, an old and established tradition.

Washington House approves marriage bill

The Washington State House of Representatives has just passed the marriage bill 55-43. Now it goes to Governor Chris Gregoire for signature.

Anti-equality activists have until June 2 to gather 120,000 valid signatures. If they do so, the bill will go to the voters for confirmation or repeal in November. If they do not, the bill becomes law and gay couples in Washington will gain equal status.

But marriage equality is not without it’s difficulties. Now poor devoutly Catholic little ol’ lady wedding cake bakers will have to shoulder the burden of figuring out how to market to the gay community without their priest finding out.

UPDATE:

Three Democrats voted no and two Republicans supported equality.

Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-College Place, said that the bill was a matter of equality.

“Why in the world would we not allow those equal rights to those individuals who are truly committed to each other in life?” she asked. She noted that her daughter told her she was gay a few years ago.

“Nothing’s different,” she said. “She’s still a fabulous human being. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid.”

And that is the true face of equality: Mothers saying, “when are you going to settle down and get married?” and “but you’ve always loved fuchsia and it makes such lovely a bridesmaids color.”

Kidding aside, i love being able to report bipartisan support for equality. It may only be two or three or four in each vote, but it means that we are making strides into the hearts of the people and that our rights and equality are judged less on partisan divisive deal-making or deal-breaking and more by the promises offered in our constitution.

But God I long for the day when “and it got Republican support” will be seen as peculiar and obvious.

Illinois marriage bill introduced

Three legislators have introduced a bill in the Illinois House to enact marriage equality. This bill, which comes a year after the state enacted Civil Unions, may not have been presented with the expectation of passage, but as a means to introduce the notion and begin conversation.

NH Repubs have an excuse

There has been speculation (including my own) that New Hampshire Republicans don’t want to stir a hornets nest and reverse a marriage law that has been accepted and is now supported by a strong majority of New Hampshire residents. So far, they have avoided the issue by being far too occupied with advancing legislation that they believe will help their economy.

But now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may have given them an ideal excuse. They can now say that while they had no obligation to advance marriage equality, now that the state has done so taking it away is an impermissible violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. So until that has been addressed by the Supreme Court, they’d best not reverse the law.

If, as I am guessing, they are looking for an excuse. And I rather suspect that our allies in the Democratic Party have already mentioned it.

Ninth Circuit decision: the basics

Here are the key points from the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Judge Walker’s finding that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Standing and Recusal

Because the State of California, via the state Supreme Court, has found that the Proponents have standing then the Ninth will respect that decision.

Judge Walker had no need to recuse himself simply because he is gay and may at some point wish to marry.

These decisions were unanimous.

Impact on marriages

This is a decision that effects California only. The unique circumstances in the state allowed for a narrow focus.

Marriages do not resume. The stay on the ruling remains while the Proponents appeal this decision on up the ladder.

The scope

The decision does not discuss whether denying of marriage violates the Constitution, but only whether taking away marriage is a violation. It notes that “Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question” but does not seek to answer that question.

The court did not look beyond a ‘rational basis’ to determine their decision. No protected class status was considered.

Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Contitution.

What the case is about

The only impact of Proposition 8 was to carve out a narrow exception to the constitutional rights of gay people, restricting the designation of the word “marriage”. All sides agree that there is a unique meaning and special value to the designation “marriage”.

The Ninth focused on that very limited exclusion – the nomenclature – not to minimize the impact of Prop 8 but to understand it’s very significant value: “That designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.” The state-enacted incidences of marriage are not it’s defining characteristics; the state applies rules based on marriages but these are only “manifestations of the recognition that the State affords.”

The best line: “Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different.”

The most important statement of what marriage is:

The official, cherished status of ‘marriage’ is distinct from the incidents of marriage, such as those listed in the California Family Code. The incidents are both elements of the institution and manifestations of the recognition that the State affords to those who are in stable and committed lifelong relationships. We allow spouses but not siblings or roommates to file taxes jointly, for example, because we acknowledge the financial interdependence of those who have entered into an “enduring” relationship. The incidents of marriage, standing alone, do not, however, convey the same governmental and societal recognition as does the designation of ‘marriage’ itself. We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries. The designation of ‘marriage’ is the status that we recognize. It is the principal manner in which the State attaches respect and dignity to the highest form of a committed relationship and to the individuals who have entered into it.

The logic

There were three arguments presented for establishing the unconstitutionality of Prop 8: 1) Due Process guarantees the fundamental right to marry; 2) excluding same-sex couples but allowing opposite sex couples is a violation of Equal Protections; 3) the Equal Protections Clause protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of existing rights.

The third argument is by far the most narrow. And the Appeals Court held to the principle that if a more narrow decision can resolve the issue, that the broader questions which might apply to more circumstances are left unanswered.

The Ninth found the removal of existing rights to be an important question. “The context matters. Withdrawing from a disfavored group the right to obtain a designation with significant societal consequences is different from declining to extend that designation in the first place, regardless of whether the right was withdrawn after a week, a year, or a decade. The action of changing something suggests a more deliberate purpose than does the inaction of leaving it as it is.”

And this characteristic made it uniquely applicable to the Romer decision (Colorado’s Amendment 2). This commonality is that it need not be a fundamental right that is selectively taken away (non-discrimination policies are not guaranteed by the constitution); it need only be that an existing privilege be curtailed to harm a politically unpopular group. Having enjoyed an equal status, a group cannot be selected for removal of that status.

The court looked at four possible reasons for the state to remove the rights of gay persons to marry: : (1) furthering California’s interest in childrearing and responsible procreation, (2) proceeding with caution before making significant changes to marriage, (3) protecting religious freedom, and (4) preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in schools.

But here is where the actual impact of Proposition 8 comes into play. In order to be rationally related to the [after the fact created] goals of the Proponents, Proposition 8 would have had to had some impact on the laws relating to those goals. It did not. Thus it simply isn’t rational to think that relegating gay people to a lesser status would accomplish responsible procreation.

And as the circumstances are not about allowing marriage but in taking it back, the question of rational reason changes. It may be possible that the state could believe that granting special rights to heterosexuals might add luster to the institution of marriage and thus further the state’s interest in responsible procreation. But to argue that luster is added to the institution by kicking gays out is merely animus, not rational thought.

Proceeding with caution certainly had no relationship to Prop 8. It was not a cautious consideration of whether marriage equality had merit, but a post-haste removal of rights.

Protecting religious freedom has even less reality as a basis; the objections over religious freedom related to non-discrimination laws – which, incidentally, require that domestic partnerships be given the same consideration as marriage. Similarly, what is taught in schools was not impacted by Prop 8; those are education code issues.

Which only leaves disapproval of gay people as a class as the basis for Prop 8’s passing. Which is something that every one of us knows, regardless of what the lawyers say.

And, as Lawrence notes, laws designed to place gay people on a lesser status are an invitation to subject them to public and private discrimination. Such laws enact nothing more or less than a judgment about the worth and dignity of gays and lesbians as a class. Which is not a legitimate government interest.

Dissent

Judge Randy Smith (Republican, Mormon) agreed on the standing and recusal issue but not on the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8. However, what is most notable in his dissent is that it feels tentative and hesitating and rather than blast the majority for their views, Smith just isn’t ready to agree.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. I must therefore respectfully dissent.

There is not a single sentence that demeans gay people or even suggests that same-sex marriage is in any way an undesirable goal. And he doesn’t put up a fiery defense.

He notes that the circumstances of Proposition 8 are not identical to 1971’s Baker case. He notes that a federal court challenge to the State’s powers to regulate marriage can be appropriate (quoting Loving). And he notes that the question is whether there is any rational foundation for the discrimination.

Interestingly, Smith quotes many of the same passages as the majority. And he seems to agree with many of the terms of the debate: the narrow scope, that animus played a role, that this is a situation of the removal of existing rights. However, he reaches a different conclusion; or, at least, is not brought to the same one.

The question he seeks to answer is

… whether withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage, alone, rationally relates to the responsible procreation and optimal parenting rationales.

Smith answers it this way:

Here, the people of California might have believed that withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage would, arguably, further the interests in promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

It doesn’t matter that the assumptions are erroneous, he states, just arguable. He recognizes that the assumptions are based partly in bias, but still gives broad leeway to the presumption of validity.

Smith’s error is, I believe, in applying rules relating to a distinct and measurable body of legislature to a broad nebulous 14 million voter population. They are not the same.

A legislative body may well consider factors such as responsible procreation and the responsibilities of the state. But voters do not consider themselves to be “the state” and pay little attention to its responsibilities. They simply address the culture and their desires to expand or limit their neighbors’ abilities to do things.

To assume that some significant percentage of the voters might have believed that withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage would further the interests in promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting requires a suspension of disbelief that exceeds anything any sci-fi movie promoter might dream of. This is not just unrealistic, but laughably so.

But that is what Smith presents.

In totality, it comes across as, “Well, I see your point, and gosh, but I’m just not sure, guys. Let’s have restraint. Let’s not rock the boat.”

Other interesting items of note

The Ninth confirmed (or noted, perhaps) that because the California voters had passed an amendment to the civil code limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the legislature could not enact equality, thus validating Gov. Schwarzenegger’s position.

They note that prejudice need not be based in animus. It may simply be based in long-standing sincerely held private beliefs. It’s the difference between disapproving of someone and wishing them harm. They concluded that Californians did not enact Proposition 8 out of ill will, simply out of disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class. This is an interesting distinction. It takes the wind out of NOM’s “they call us bigots” claim.

None of them wanted to take on or even discuss the merits of Olson/Boies’ argument that stricter scrutiny is called for in anti-gay discrimination cases.

A Christian question

For many Americans the question of marriage equality circles around what they see as ideal or moral or approved by their Christian faith. It is a question of “what does God want them to do?” And being convinced that homosexuality is a sin, they need go no further to justify their discrimination.

But that approach misses the general theme of Jesus and the early Christian writers. The gospels and epistles don’t discuss what the Roman law should be. The early church didn’t establish agenda to oppress the worship of Diana or to seek dominion over the mountains of entertainment and government. Even their condemnation of unacceptable behavior didn’t extend beyond refusing to fellowship with the offender.

Although one would be hard pressed to see it in the culture or the dogma, Christianity was never supposed to be focused on the flaws of others, real or imagined, or to shape society in a godly manner. Rather it was designed as a personal faith directed inward and evidenced by how it changes the individual, not what he could demand of his neighbor.

The real question that Christians are scripturally directed to ask, the one that would be familiar to the founders of the faith, is “what does God want me to do?” And it is this question that Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) asked herself.

“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.

“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.

I am certain that Sen. Haugen will be soundly condemned by those who will claim that she “went against her faith and her religion.” But her considerations go to the heart of what Christianity was intended to be and, sadly, so seldom is.

Christie to Republicans: put marriage on the ballot, the people will vote for it

Sometimes I am tempted to think that the prominent Republicans in this country just wish that marriage equality was already the law so that they didn’t have to talk about it or make promises to “the base”. Last year, New York Senate Majority Leader Skelos (who could have single handedly stopped the bill) put the question to the Senate after enough Republican votes were secured so that he could vote no while the bill passed. Today New Hampshire Republicans tell us that they are far too busy on fiscal matters for their supermajorities in each house to even consider repeal this year.

And now New Jersey Governor Christie has this to say about his new decision to direct Republican lawmakers to support a bill that would create a November referendum: (Bloomberg)

“The polls that I’ve seen show that if this goes to the ballot, I lose. How much more magnanimous could I be?”

There’s a whole pile of ways that can be interpreted and we can only guess as to what it means. While I think he bets on the polls being wrong, my best guess is that what he really wants to say is, “Stop asking me about that. I don’t care. Really, I couldn’t care in the slightest.”

NOM’s sad little dishonest “survey”

What do you do when all the polls are against you? What do you do when accurately reporting social attitudes demonstrates that you are outside the mainstream and that people aren’t buying your arguments anymore. What do you do to justify your continued ‘defense of the family’ when it becomes clear that ‘the family’ doesn’t want your defense?

Well, if you are the National Organization for Marriage, you make sh!t up. And what better way than to conduct your own “survey” of the attitudes of Washington voters and pass it off as meaningful. Here’s what they say about their little survey.

When reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number -71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.

“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. Thirty-one other states have been able to vote on the definition of marriage, and Washington voters deserve the same opportunity,” Brown said. “Voters have made it clear in this survey that they alone should decide the marriage issue—not legislators. Let the people vote.”

But reading the actual survey is just funny. They tried everything they could to get desired results from this “survey” and still Washingtonians didn’t give them what they wanted. And while the survey is meaningless from a social survey standpoint, it does illustrate how dishonest NOM actually is willing to be.

First, NOM stacked the deck. Choosing an age sample that understated those under 45 and overstate those over 65 by about 3-4%. They also found a sample that is 36% conservative and 34% liberal on social issues. In Washington. And in a state that voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama (with an 18 point spread), their sample is 37% leaning Democrat and 35% leaning Republican.

And then NOM played the ‘push poll’ game, setting up language to try and jostle participants into giving them an answer that they can use for political gain. It’s a very common tactic of politicians, but it is despicable and immoral when used by a group that pretends to be protecting the voters.

The first question is about whether the participant is a voter. No problem. But then it is followed by three ‘set-up’ questions designed to place the participant as an opponent to the legislature: 2) is Washington going in the right direction or wrong track, and 3) how would you rate the job performance of Gov. Gregoire and 4) the legislature. Rating categories were excellent, good, only fair, poor, other.

“Only fair” is an interesting option. Usually “fair” stands alone, as an indication of acceptable but not particularly laudable. However, by adding “only”, NOM poisons this option and takes it from “okay” and implies a failure. This intentional shading was necessary in order to push the participant into being suspicious of the legislature and governor.

And then come the marriage questions. And the first one is just laughable obvious.

5. 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 definiton of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a 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?

36% Necessary
57% Not Necessary
7% Don’t Know / No Response

Any two people. Hmmm. Like, say, siblings or parent and child or fundamentalist Mormon and his unwilling 14 year old bride, or you and the girl down the street that put out a restraining order on you. Any two people… yeah, that’s just a lie. Not a misstatement, not a convenient term for a complex issue. Nope. Just a lie.

And is it “necessary now”? Well, considering the economy and other issues of concern, having 36% say that it’s necessary now is a HUGE failure for NOM.

6. 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?

8% Defined by the courts
9% Defined by the Legislature
71% Defined by the voters
12% Don’t know / no response

Okay. That’s probably somewhat reflective of their views.

7. If you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her that passing a new which charges 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?

23% Work on marriage law
72% Work on solving other problems
4% Don’t know/no response

Again, colossal fail for NOM. A quarter of Washington residents think that marriage equality is more important than anything else.

But here is the clincher. Here is the question to which everything was geared. Here is the answer that NOM has been driving for:

8. 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?

42% Vote for new marriage law
49% Vote against marriage change
10% Don’t know / No Response

Having done everything they could to stack the survey population and the skew the poll to show that “the people” don’t want equality, still they couldn’t get more than half to say to vote against the bill. Having gotten participants to agree that it wasn’t necessary or more important than other matters and that it should be up to “the voters”, still 42% said to vote for the “any two people” bill.

Oh, NOM, you are a sad little group, aren’t you? Unethical, immoral, dishonest, and still losing your culture war over the hearts and minds of decent people.

OMG: New Hampshire Republicans may not vote to repeal marriage!!

Yesterday was supposed to be the day that the New Hampshire legislature voted to repeal marriage equality. And all day I kept trying to find out what was going on, only to be met with silence. Now I know why. According to the Boston Globe, the New Hampshire House Republicans have issued a statement listing their 2012 agenda, and repealing marriage equality is not on it.

Okay, I knew it was a possibility. And I’m not totally shocked. But I really didn’t dare hope – and I’m still not willing to read too much into this announcement:

Republican House Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt of Salem said Thursday the House was focusing on economic and education reforms that would bring job creators to New Hampshire and put citizens back to work.

Hot-button social issues like gun rights, immigration and labor reform were all absent from the agenda, but the biggest hole was left by gay marriage, which is the target of several bills aiming to repeal it.

After hours of meetings and talking with the caucus, they determined that this wasn’t a priority.