Marriage, Again

Ran across this story just now, about how some people are striving mightily to keep the same-sex marriage debate front and center.

This election will be the first since the 1990s without a measure to ban gay marriage on any state ballot, yet the divisive issue is roiling races across the country during a time of tumult for the gay rights movement.

In Minnesota, New Hampshire, California and New York, gubernatorial campaigns have become battlegrounds for rival sides in the debate, with the Democratic candidates supporting same-sex marriage and the Republicans opposed.

In Iowa, voters will decide whether to oust three state Supreme Court justices who joined last year's unanimous decision making the state one of five where gay marriage is legal.

Let's take Iowa, for example"

Polls show Iowa voters evenly split on whether to oust three Supreme Court justices who were part of the decision legalizing gay marriage. If the effort succeeds, it would be the first time since Iowa adopted its current system for appointing judges in 1962 that voters opted to remove a Supreme Court justice.

The targets include Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, who said the three wouldn't undertake a counter-campaign because they don't want to set a questionable example for judges by campaigning and raising money.

Brown said removal of any of the justices would be a "game-changer" with national impact.

"Judges will have to sit up and take notice that they can't just arbitrarily make up the law," he said.

That's Brian Brown, president of NOM, Maggie Gallagher's money-laundering organization. The whole thrust of the campaign in Iowa is "accountability" -- i.e., it's the political equivalent of the AFA boycotts of any corporation that acknowledges that GLBTs are human beings. "Arbitrarily make up the law?" I trust that Mr. Brown has heard of "constitutions" -- all the states have them. So does the U.S. And laws are supposed to conform to them, especially in the area of civil rights. Mr. Brown seems to have a somewhat limited understanding of what "rule by law" actually means.

Interestingly enough, NOM doesn't believe in accountability for its donors. Or for itself. Google "National Organization for Marriage+election laws" and see the number of lawsuits that NOM has launched to avoid any disclosure of its donors or its funding in general. Since many of these cases are being handled by the Alliance Defense Fund, you can see why NOM has had such trouble winning. Of course, I'm sure part of it is that the cases have no merit to begin with. I understand the fallback position is that if they lose a case, NOM just ignores the verdict, as it has done in Maine. Here's the judge's decision in the Maine case:

Dbh 08192010 1-09cv538 Natl Org for Marriage v Mckee

It's kind of confusing, but the bottom line is that, although some provisions of the Maine law are unduly burdensome and overly broad, those provisions do not impact NOM's legal responsibility to turn over its donor lists. Be that as it may, as far as I've been able to determine, NOM hasn't complied. The decision was handed down in August.

Oh, and just for fun, I stopped by NOM's website. (Well, it wasn't very much fun, but I was curious.) The "National Organization for Marriage" doesn't have one single program or resource in support of married couples. It's just another anti-gay hate group.

I was going to include photos of Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher, but that was just too depressing. Brian Brown looks like an axe-murderer, and Maggie Gallagher looks like a spoiled brat.

I'm sure that's significant, somehow.