It’s the “If I say it three times, it’s true” formula. Sadly, it works, and the only way to counter it is to call them on it, loudly, publicly, and immediately.

Liars for Jesus have bought into the idea that reality is what you say it is — the Caterpillar meme. Throw a fact at it, and it crumbles — but they always seem to have another.

I have a suggestion for Dan Savage, Evan Wolfson, and any other LGBT advocate who is asked to appear on a talk show with the likes of Tony Perkins or Brian Brown (quite possibly the two most unregenerate liars in the public arena today): your first question should be directed to the host, and it should be along the lines of “Why is this known liar with a vicious anti-gay agenda here to discuss civil rights for LGBTs?” Because it’s the media who are validating crap like this. I’d love to see the reaction to that.

My only fear is they will defeat Washington State’s marriage equality bill by mob rule. They have an unendless supply of big money. They should have waited to pass the legislation this year to stop them from gathering enough signatures before the November election.

Thanks to the work of diligent citizens, proposed DOMA legislation in New Mexico died an early death during our current legislative session. The proposer of the legislation this year was found to have had a domestic violence accusation followed by divorce, after a short marriage. Court documents were provided in an unmarked envelope to a blogger, and while civil rights activists were already engaged in the process, the bill was withdrawn before it reached committee.

Despite our bullying Governor’s best efforts this year, she has been rebuffed in her attempts both in the courts and in the legislature to drag NM back to the dark ages. While not (publicly) involved in the DOMA actions, the Governor has been unceasingly adamant in opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. NM is one of the states that allows licenses. Similarly, voter ID legislation was also defeated.

Every conservative pitch – every one – says “We’re winning! But we haven’t won yet!” Keeps the money flowing in and the victim complexes revving.

Maybe Manatee Gallagher is borrowing Rove’s math from 2006.

Reminds me of some of our Paulbots who keep insisting that Ron Paul is winning despite the fact that he keeps finishing in second, third and fourth place.

This could be a “win the battle” but “lose-the-war” type victory.

In 1999, Federal Judge Charles Haden (Ford appointee), of the southern district of W. Virginia, correctly ruled that mountain-top-removal coal mining violated the Clean Water Act.

Republicans (joined by local Democrats) railed against this ruling.

Traditionally Democratic W. Virginia went Republican in the 2000 election – putting W. into the white house.

Had Haden’s ruling been delayed 13 months, W. Virginia would have went Democratic in 2000 (making the outcome in Florida irrelevant) and Gore would have been president.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed Haden’s decision in 2001. So, in the end, the battle was lost and the country was stuck with W.

Correct. The one thing on which NOM is accurate is that, for now, when SSM is put to a popular vote, it will lose. Maybe not by as much as it did 20 or even 10 years ago, but it will still lose. They have the means to make people feel that their children are in danger and life as we know it will cease to exist if SSM is allowed to go forward (current examples to the contrary notwithstanding.

I understand the argument that these things shouldn’t be put to popular vote, but as long as we have an initiative process, they will be. The only way to really quiet NOM and other SSM opponents is to have one of these ballot initiatives come out in favor of SSM. When that happens (which it will…it’s just a matter of when) it will be interesting to hear the spin since they’ll have to defend their mantra of “let the people decide” when the people didn’t decide as they’d hoped.

NOM’s war against gay human beings includes telling nasty malicious lies about them and sponsoring anti-gay hate rallies where NOM-approved speakers yell at the mob that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” That’s what the Rethugliturd presidential candidates are signing on to when they sign the NOM pledge. Malicious lies and threats of violence against a minority. How “moral.”

worthy to death

Not only what they’re saying, but the way they say it: so redolent of the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, medieval torture, witchhunts.

I’m not sure that putting civil rights to a popular vote is even allowable under the Constitution. That seemed to be the thrust of Romer vs. Evans, on which the 9th Circuit panel relied heavily in its opinion in Perry vs. Brown.

Not a lawyer, but it seems to me there could be grounds for a suit against such an initiative on Due Process and/or Equal Protection grounds. Prop 8 seems to demonstrate that such an initiative can be nullified after the fact (so far), but it seems that plaintiffs who stand to suffer harm — having a fundamental right denied — could sue to stop a referendum.

But such anti-SSM initiatives have passed in 31 states, so it’s hard to believe it’s unconstitutional because otherwise we’d have had successful challenges by now.

I think the only reason the Prop 8 case was able to be challenged was because not only did the law legalize same sex marriage, but people actually got married during the 18 months preceding Prop 8′s passage. In Maine, for example, the legislature legalized same sex marriage, but no marriages were allowed to take place while they collected iniative signatures to repeal the law. So it appears the argument that a right already granted was taken away wouldn’t have worked because up until the point the initiative passed, no gay or lesbian couple could legally get married.

This is why SSM opponents in Washington will insist on a stay until they try to qualify it for the ballot and vote on it. That way if it goes down to defeat by popular vote, there could be no court challenge similar to the Prop 8 challenge.

insist on a stay

Technical note: Nobody can request a stay on new legislation in WA. However, when someone files a referendum, the state’s referendum law automatically puts enactment of the new law on hold *if* those challenging the new law can get enough signatures to qualify their referendum for the ballot before the law would normally go into effect. In WA, new laws go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, or June 6. So if the anti-equality people can qualify their referendum by June 6, the law won’t be enacted until 30 days after the November election (if we prevail). If they don’t get enough signatures by June 6, the law goes into effect June 7 and weddings can start that same week.

Er… not quite correct in that story about New Mexico.

True, we don’t have any laws or state constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages. However, neither do we have any laws in favor of them, nor does our state law take out-of-state same sex marriage into account.

In short, we’re in a kind of limbo here on the subject. We keep fighting back the bigots and just recently prevented yet another attempt to pass a measure… but at the same time, we’ve been unable to pass anything resembling a DP registry, civil unions, or recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

We haven’t won the battle here. At the moment, it is entirely a holding action. We’d love to make some progress, but every time we try, the religious forces push back and work their fear mojo.

The only reason those laws and amendments still stand is that no one has challenged them. It’s possible that one could mount a challenge based on the Court’s decisions in Romer and in Lawrence. There is ample precedent to establish that marriage is a fundamental right (18 Supreme Court decisions, if I remember correctly, going back to 1888). Romer found that a disfavored group cannot be excluded from the political process and constitutional guarantees simply because of animus; Lawrence found that the state has no compelling interest in regulating private intimate behavior between consenting adults. (Scalia’s dissent pointed out that the decision paved the way for same-sex marriage.) If you really wanted to do a full-dress version, you could even throw in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, although that might be a little tricky, depending on the legislative histories and the way campaigns were framed — although I think there are enough religious institutions on the right side of the question that it has to be taken seriously.