News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.NOM reporting requirement upheld
Timothy Kincaid
February 1st, 2012
The first marriage news of the day is a good start.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has upheld the decision that the National Organization for [Catholic] Marriage must follow campaign reporting requirements. This is no surprise but it is welcome.
Of course they will not do so. And so it’s off to the Supreme Court.
NOM Manufactures Some Outrage
Rob Tisinai
January 31st, 2012
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:
- It cautions against using tradition as an argument against marriage equality.
- It cautions, on Constitutional grounds, against using religion as an argument against marriage equality.
- 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.
NOM: New Hampshire To Vote On Marriage Equality Repeal Wednesday
Jim Burroway
January 30th, 2012
NOM has the details on their blog:
I’ve got exciting news! We’ve been told that HB437—a bill to repeal same-sex marriage—will be voted on Next Wednesday, February 1st! Now is the time to call your legislators—especially House members—right away and ask them to VOTE YES ON HB 437! [Emphasis -- and exclamation points! -- in the original]
If you’re a New Hampshire resident of voter, NOM helpfully provides easy links so you can call your legislator:
Maggie’s Strategy: Denying Reality
Rob Tisinai
January 27th, 2012
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.
Maggie Gallagher endorses Rick Santorum
Timothy Kincaid
January 16th, 2012
National Organization for [Catholic] Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has endorse Pope Rick, as was anticipated. In doing so, she had far less to say about his policies or qualifications than she did about the meanies who are mocking the candidate:
They will go after him not just to defeat Rick Santorum, but to smear his good name, to associate it with their own muck, to take a decent and honorable man and try literally to make his name mean mud.
Oh, Maggie, no one is trying to literally make his name mean mud! Even a box of rocks knows that.
The box of rocks is very familiar with mud and considers mud to be a good friend. But it tries to keep a garden hose handy if there is any chance of coming in contact with santorum.
COMMENT (1) | LINK
Teleprompter reader selected to be NOM’s “Face of Minnesota for Marriage”
Timothy Kincaid
January 9th, 2012
Unable to find anyone qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the other anti-gay activists at Minnesota for Marriage have decided that the face of their anti-gay movement would be Kalley Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station. Which means that the level of intellectual discourse will be as follows:
“If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?” she asked rhetorically. “Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they’re teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be okay and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can’t allow this to happen.
That probably shouldn’t surprise us much. Minnesota for Marriage is releasing a number of Marriage Minute videos to get their views across. The 18 second long Marriage Minute introductory segment displays pictures labeled “Our Families”, “Our Futures”, “Our Marriages”, and “Our Children”. But the Washington Independent notes that they seem a bit confused on what “our” means.
Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition of more than 100 groups, analyzed the images in the first video released and determined that not a single person in the video was actually from Minnesota.
“While this video is full of stock images, it is strangely lacking in real Minnesotans,” the group said on its Facebook page. “Perhaps they couldn’t find any real Minnesotans willing to support their divisive agenda?”
One image appears to have been taken by a French photographer of a French family, and another is being used on the website of an India-based health-care center.
Oh my, it’s going to be a busy season for that box of rocks.
NOM runs anti-Ron Paul ad
Timothy Kincaid
December 28th, 2011
While our community may be noting with discomfort the peculiar affiliations or view of a number of Ron Paul’s prominent supporters, that doesn’t mean that he is viewed favorably by those who dedicate themselves day in and day out to obsessing about Teh Ghey. It seems that Ron Paul is “a radical who would destroy traditional marriage in America.”
Whodathunkit? So pro-equality is Ron Paul that NOM has created an entire website for the purpose of “spotlighting Ron Paul’s unwillingness to defend marriage.”
But it seems that Ron Paul is not the only nefarious secret supporter of equality, Michele Bachmann has learned that Mitt Romney is pro-equality as well:
“Mitt Romney has defended gay marriage and even signed marriage licenses for same-sex couples and Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government should protect the institution of marriage,” Bachmann said. “I have a record of defending life, marriage and the family and I’ll protect them as president of the United States.”
But I just don’t think that Hatin’ on Teh Ghey is getting as much traction as it has in the past. There’s something about having real issues like a stagnant economy and high unemployment to make such issues seem as silly as they really are.
COMMENTS (6) | LINK
NOM’s Christmas Gift: Deepening Desperation
Rob Tisinai
December 26th, 2011
NOM reports that 61% of New Hampshire voters want to repeal the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage. Disappointing, but we have to remember that even this represents progress when compared to public sentiment a decade ago, so –
Wait, hold on, let me check…
So sorry. My mistake. NOM is reporting that 60% of New Hampshire Republicans want to repeal same-sex marriage.
Only 60%.
Of Republicans.
I’m thrilled with that number. And NOM’s happy about it, too? That’s quite revealing. Apparently they’ve set themselves a new, lower threshold for what constitutes good news. Perhaps something like:
Yay! Our base is merely eroding quickly rather than extremely quickly.
Or:
Hoorah! 61% of the most conservative 28% of New Hampshire voters haven’t abandoned us yet!
Or:
Yippee! Because, well…yippee!
Actually, they think of it like this, spinning the result in a fashion that blows away any attempt to parody it.
“With more than 3 out of 5 New Hampshire Primary voters favoring the restoration of marriage, the verdict is in: Republicans are united in the fight against the national agenda of wealthy, gay marriage lobbyists,” said Jason Rose of the July Fourth Forum PAC.
Emphasis added. Anyway, Merry Christmas. From NOM.
Maggie Gallagher Lies. Or Forgets. Or Something.
Rob Tisinai
December 9th, 2011
Maggie Gallagher ought to remember that her opponents know how to Google.
Today, over on NOMblog, she offers us this:
I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.
Really? How about this, from January 28, 2010, in which Maggie reports on a study about child abuse, a study that didn’t look at same-sex couples:
Question: What kind of family structure best protects children from child abuse?
Answer: Married biological parents. (see page 5-25).
…
Children living with both their mom and dad united by marriage have one-third the rate of serious child abuse, compared to children in any other family structure.
Here’s my question for Ted [Olsen] and David [Boies] as they strive to prove that Science Says same-sex unions are just like opposite-sex ones, when it comes to children.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps alone of all the family structures science has ever studied, children living with same-sex couples do just as well as children in intact married families…
But does this study, which is one of hundreds with similar results favoring the natural family give Ted Olson and David Boies pause late at night as they assert the scientific irrationality of respect for the natural family at all I wonder? Ted and David, I’m wondering: not even a little bit?
Here we have Maggie arguing that we should think twice about gay marriage because it’s possible same-sex couples harm their own children at a higher rate married biological parents do — a possibility she admits is completely unsupported by evidence, even as she couches it in terms that make it sound likely.
Now what did she just claim today?
I would like to say personally that nothing in any argument I’ve ever made on gay marriage, rests on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.
Google, Maggie, Google.
NOM’s Special Right
Rob Tisinai
November 22nd, 2011
NOM has decided to ban a contributor to one of its blogs. Not a commenter, mind you (that would be nothing new), but a contributor, an official NOM blogger:
We at the Ruth blog have decided to no longer allow Ari to have posting privileges over here. His sarcasm has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it. Those who are interested in hearing what Ari has to say can find him at his own blog. We will stick to reporting on all aspects of the marriage issue in a civil way.
This Ari has recently called gay activists “the most loathsome people in the world.” In the same post, he declared that folks who want discrimination laws enforced “should not be able to go out in the streets for fear of being spat upon by decent people.” The post was removed, but not before NOM took some heat for it.
The irony is so delicious I want to smear it on toast and eat it for lunch.
NOM’s been on a crusade (and fundraising mission) lately about people who are persecuted for their anti-gay views.
- Gerald Buell, a teacher who called committed same-sex relationships a “cesspool” that make him “almost throw up,” vowing (and this is important) to teach “God’s truth” in his public school classes.
- Viki Knox, a teacher who says homosexuality is “a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation” that “breeds like cancer,” declaring (and this important), “THAT’S WHAT I TEACH AND PREACH!” (her caps, not mine).
- Frank Turek, a private consultant who publishes material characterizing gays as immoral, depraved, America-hating people comparable to murderers and rapists, who reduce their children to trophies and cannot love their partners. And then he presumes (and this is important) to teach workshops on leadership — and team-building — to companies that employ gays and lesbians.
NOM has championed these poor victims, all of whom play ball in the same park as Ari, all of whom have made their public statements relevant to their jobs. NOM has denounced alleged attempts by the evil gay mafia to “silence” them. NOM has declared it to be persecution, a violation of liberty, for an organization to decide someone’s rhetoric “has gone over the line and we don’t care to be associated with it.”
Unless of course the organization is NOM. In that case, apparently, it’s a special right they reserve for themselves.
NOM Exploits Supporters with Casual, Offhand Lie
Rob Tisinai
November 3rd, 2011
The National Organization “for” Marriage recently issued another one of its regular pleas for money, and this one contains — surprise! — a lie. In an article about Illinois adoption agencies, NOM president Brian Brown writes:
Now that government is refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies…
This is a lie.
- I called Illinois’ Department of Children & Family Services (312-814-6847). They still work with Christian adoption agencies.
- I called St. Mary’s Services, an Episcopalian adoption agency (847-870-8181). The state government still works with them.
- I called Illini Christian Ministries (217-469-7566), which offers adoption services. The state government still works with them.
- I called Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (847-635-4600), which offers adoptions services. The state government actually funds them. (This may also be true of the other agencies, but I have not confirmed it.)
The government is not “refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies.” If NOM were committed to honesty, it could have written, “Now that government is refusing to work with adoption agencies that violate anti-discrimination law…” but that’s got a pretty low martyr factor. And NOM needs that martyr factor.
Their big project now is developing a persecution narrative. It’s a desperate strategy. When judges mandated same-sex marriage, NOM decried judges who legislated from the bench. When state legislature passed same-sex marriage, NOM complained about legislators legislating from the legislature (!), and called for referendum by popular vote. Now that public opinion is turning firmly against them, they’re trying to lay groundwork for judges to legislate from the bench by declaring same-sex marriage an infringement on religious freedom.
Apparently they can’t do that without lying.
What’s even more disturbing, though, is the contempt they show their own supporters. NOM spread this lie in a fundraising appeal. They have no compunctions about deceiving their followers in order to extract cash from them.
And of course, it’s not just about the money. This is another contribution to the anti-gay echo chamber. By offering this falsehood in a casual, offhand way, their readers accept it as a simple, obvious truth. They’ll repeat it, not realizing it’s a lie. Good, innocent folk will repeat it after them. NOM isn’t just exploiting people’s wallets; it’s exploiting their trust. And soon enough, once again, a lie will become the “truth.”
I don’t know why I still find it so astonishing when our opponents hold themselves up as moral guardians while lying to the very people them claim to protect.
But, somehow, I always do.
Marriage Opponents Lose Pursuit Of Special Rights
Jim Burroway
October 21st, 2011
It’s been a bad week for the National Organization for Marriage. Two separate courts this week ruled against NOM’s attempt to enshrine a special right to flout laws intended to lend transparency to the electoral process. The first loss came on Monday when Federal Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in Doe v Reed (PDF: 112KB/34 pages) that the state of Washington must disclose the names of citizens who signed the petition putting Referendum 71 on the ballot. Protect Marriage Washington, a NOM affiliate, sued to block the release in a bid to stake a special exemption to Washington’s campaign disclosure laws, claiming that signatories would be subject to threats and harassments. Judge Settle rejected that claim:
While Plaintiffs have not shown serious and widespread threats, harassment, or reprisals against the signers of R-71, or even that such activity would be reasonably likely to occur upon the publication of their names and contact information, they have developed substantial evidence that the public advocacy of traditional marriage as the exclusive definition of marriage, or the expansion of rights for same sex partners, has engendered hostility in this state, and risen to violence elsewhere, against some who have engaged in that advocacy. This should concern every citizen and deserves the full attention of law enforcement when the line gets crossed and an advocate becomes the victim of a crime or is subject to a genuine threat of violence. The right of individuals to speak openly and associate with others who share common views without justified fear of harm is at the very foundation of preserving a free and open society.
The facts before the Court in this case, however, do not rise to the level of demonstrating that a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals exists as to the signers of R-71, now nearly two years after R-71 was submitted to the voters in Washington State.
That was on Monday. To bookend the week perfectly, Federal Judge Morrison England, Jr., today issued a bench ruling denying ProtectMarriage.com and NOM’s quest for a special right to withhold the release of campaign finance records related to the passage of Propositon 8 three years ago. Judge England said that the groups failed to prove that they should be exempt from campaign finance laws which are designed to protect the public during expensive initiative campaigns.
Judge England is expected to issue a written ruling later.
COMMENTS (10) | LINK
Gays Are Evil
Jim Burroway
October 3rd, 2011
So says National Organization for Marriage’s new honcho John Eastman:
Those fighting for traditional marriage can feel beaten down by the culture at large. Do you feel that victory for traditional marriage is possible?
Evil will be with us always, and it requires constant vigilance to defeat. I look at it as a litigator and an educator. There will always be threats to institutions grounded in human nature by those who think human nature doesn’t define limits. We need to be involved in the immediate defense of threats against marriage, but also take a long-range view by educating the next generation about the importance of the issues we’re confronting.
And so does Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton:
All sexual sin is wrong because it fails to mirror the Trinitarian image, but homosexuality does more than fail. It’s a particularly evil lie of Satan because he knows that it overthrows the very image of the Trinitarian God in creation, revealed in the union of male and female.
And yet Focus On the Family’s Tim Daly complained to CNN that it’s unfair to say Focus hates gay people:
But do we, as Webster’s defines “hate,” feel “intense hostility and aversion” to gays and lesbians? Do we regard them with “extreme dislike or antipathy”? Unequivocally not.
Uh huh.
[via Good As You]
COMMENTS (18) | LINK
Not so skurrred
Timothy Kincaid
September 22nd, 2011
Once it became evident that Perry v. Schwarzenegger – the Proposition 8 trial – would be followed closely by the public and once it was abundantly clear that those supporting Proposition 8 had nothing to offer in its defense but speculation, tradition, and animus, the Proponents knew they had to do something. So they insisted that the case not be shown to the citizens, going so far as the Supreme Court.
But you can’t tell the court (or the public) that your witnesses aren’t going to witness because they will look like fools, so the Proponents came up with a unique explanation. Gays are violent threatening people and the witnesses are terrified of repercussions. (Washington Times)
“Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigned for Proposition 8 but isn’t a party to the case, said he is worried about the safety of witnesses, who could include contributors, campaign staff and volunteers.
‘The question is really whether Judge Walker can put people on the stand where they can be threatened,’ said Mr. Brown. ‘It’s a question of people’s safety.’
But Brian Brown and his integrity parted ways long ago. In reality, none of the witnesses – indeed, no anti-gay activists – fear gay people. Our community is one which has been welcoming and a safe place for pretty much anyone.
Surely there is no person in this country more singularly associated with the campaign to deny gay people their civil marriage rights than Maggie Gallagher… the same Maggie Gallagher who went alone to a theatrical production this week where she knew that the overwhelming majority of people around her would be gay.
Because she knew she’d be safe.
COMMENTS (10) | LINK
Confirmed: Maggie Gallagher Steps Down As NOM Board Chair
Jim Burroway
September 22nd, 2011
Following an earlier Tweet from an AP reporter, the National Organization for Marriage has now confirmed that Maggie Gallagher is stepping down as board chair, and that John Eastman has been tapped for the position. According to NOM’s press release:
Dr. John Eastman is the former Dean of Chapman University Law School in California and is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm associated with the Claremont Institute. He has participated in over 50 cases in our nation’s highest courts, including such landmark cases as the Pledge of Allegiance case, the Boy Scouts of America case, the Ohio school vouchers case, the Kelo case involving property takings, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act case. Dr. Eastman is a former clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in government and political philosophy from Claremont Graduate School.
…John Eastman stated, “Marriage has quite correctly been described as a bedrock of civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is a critically important issue, and I’m honored to join such distinguished company on the Board of such a phenomenally effective organization as the National Organization for Marriage.”
The press release also quotes Gallagher:
“I will remain on the NOM board, and continue to work on specific projects for NOM, as well as taking on some additional outside projects I’ve long deferred, such as finishing my book Debating Same-Sex Marriage¸ which I’ve been working on for Oxford University Press with Prof. John Corvino,” Gallagher added.
Maggie Gallagher Out at NOM?
Jim Burroway
September 22nd, 2011
That’s what AP reporter David Crary tweeted:
John Eastman’s bio at Chapman University is here. He’s an attorney and founding director of the conservative Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, which is affiliated with the Claremont Institute, dedicated to “restor[ing] the principles of the American founding fathers to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. Eastman is also a former law clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas. We’ll have more as this develops.
Perry Signs NOM’s Anti-Gay Pledge
Jim Burroway
August 26th, 2011
Pledges allegiance to Maggie Gallagher.
Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry joins Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in signing the National Organizations for Marriage’s anti-gay pledge. The pledge requires candidates to:
- Support the Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
- Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court,
- Apply a marriage litmus test for judges and the attorney general,
- Appoint a presidential commission to investigate so-called “harassment” of traditional marriage supporters,
- Demand that marriage be put to a vote in the District of Columbia.
NOM Loses Another Attempt To Flout Campaign Laws
Jim Burroway
August 12th, 2011
The National Organization for Marriage lost two more court cases yesterday when the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid to avoid complying with Rhode Island’s and Maine’s campaign disclosure laws. NOM had asked a federal district judge to exempt them from Rhode Island’s requirement that they disclose money they spent to support various candidates. This case involves NOM’s support for political candidates. A separate case in Maine concerning NOM’s support for a ballot question that overturned Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009 is still pending before the First Circuit Court. A lower court had upheld Maine’s financial disclosure laws concerning ballot measures.
Pawlenty, Santorum join FRC’s and NOM’s Iowa Bus Tour
Jim Burroway
August 10th, 2011
The “Values Voters Bus Tour,” sponsored by the Family “Research” Council’s lobbying arm, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Susan B. Anthony List, kicked off yesterday in Des Moines, Iowa, with the goal of hitting several Iowa communities ahead of Saturday’s GOP presidential Straw Poll. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was on hand for the tour’s start, which was greeted by a sparse crowd that appears to have been outnumbered by reporters:
The bus made five more stops before the day was done yesterday. This morning, the bus tour resumed with a breakfast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum met the bus.
COMMENTS (10) | LINK
Pawlenty caves to NOM pressure
Timothy Kincaid
August 5th, 2011
After a day in which the National Organization for Marriage, an adjunct of the Roman Catholic Church, pressured former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty by bitching about him to various media and encouraging the people on its email list to call him, Pawlenty caved. (Politico)
“After reviewing the pledge, the governor wanted to sign it and we sent it to them this morning,” said Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant.
Because, of course Pawlenty wanted to pledge his fealty to a special interest group that is shrinking in size and influence and to announce that he, too, would appoint puppet judges to the federal bench so as to allow the executive branch to dictate the outcome of legislation.
Klassy.
