Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Man, the ADF is really on a roll lately with false claims. In this blog post, the admin of their blog claims that the various state amendments banning gay marriage do not interfere with governments or private companies offering benefits to domestic partners:
Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex "marriage" argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people...Same-sex "marriage" advocates argue that eliminating domestic partnerships or other counterfeit marital institutions is hateful and mean spirited, because it will undermine benefits granted to unmarried people. Unfortunately, many people (including some so-called "conservative" politicians) have bought into this fallacious argument.
I would submit that the only ones sowing confusion on this point are religious right groups like the ADF. For example, the Thomas More Law Center has been using the ban on gay marriage in Michigan to sue cities and universities, arguing that their domestic partnership benefits violate that law. And here's the kicker: one of their main attorneys, Patrick Gillen, was the co-author of that referendum while working with a group called Citizens for the Protection of Marriage (CFPM). The CFPM put out a brochure during the lead up to the 2004 election where they said pretty much the same thing the ADF is claiming now:
Proposal 2 is Only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is-for families today and future generations. (Emphasis in the original)
Same claim: this has only to do with the definition of marriage, not with benefits that can be offered to employees. That was a lie. Gillen then turned around and sued two cities in the state and Michigan State University, claiming that this law makes their partnership benefits illegal. In July, when the suit against MSU was filed, he said:
Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center's attorney handling the case said that MSU's policy is a transparent effort to circumvent the Marriage Amendment and state law. According to Gillen, "The constitution and laws of Michigan are designed to protect marriage and refuse recognition to same-sex unions, including same-sex domestic partnerships. Common sense and history demonstrate the enduring value of the traditional family, and its vital role in promoting the good of spouses and children, as well as the common good of society. MSU is not free to disregard state law to promote its own definition of marriage and use state funds to promote its experiment with the family."
But apparently, Gillen is free to disregard the statements of his own organization regarding the law he wrote himself. So who here is sowing confusion, ADF? Indeed, the ADF's double talk on this is rather staggering. Look at this report, which includes details about the battle over gay marriage in Wisconsin, where the legislature has retained the ADF to intervene in a state lawsuit about worker benefits. Here's what the ADF said about that situation:
Conservative lawmakers in Wisconsin also are seeking to block gay state employees from winning the right to employee partnership benefits. That state's Legislature last month approved sending a constitutional amendment to a statewide vote in November that says "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."...The Wisconsin amendment passed partly in response to a lawsuit filed by several gay state university employees seeking health insurance for their partners. The Legislature also has retained the services of a conservative evangelical law firm, the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), in an attempt to intervene in the workers' lawsuit...
The attorney representing Wisconsin's Legislature, Glen Lavy, senior vice president of ADF's Marriage Litigation Center, said that it was clearly the intent of state lawmakers and voters who approved these bans to stop employers or anyone else from treating gay couples like married couples.
Michigan and Wisconsin are not alone in this regard. It's happening in Ohio too:
In Ohio, state Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr. (R) filed a lawsuit against Miami University of Ohio in November 2005 for offering partnership benefits to gay employees, saying it violates the state's constitutional same-sex marriage ban. That case is pending in trial court.
This is legal doublespeak at its finest, claiming that such amendments don't affect domestic partnership benefits...right up until they pass. Then once they're passed, suits are filed to stop such benefits based on those amendments. The ADF and other religious right groups who back such amendments are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Comments
Man, I can no longer simply link individual posts from your blog on forums..I have to link the main page of your blog. So much good stuff! =)
Posted by: Markus | October 13, 2006 2:36 PM
This is about nothing more than hate and discrimination, not baout protecting family. How anyone can delude themselves into thinking otherwise astounds me. Its times like this where I can see why believing in a god could be conmforting. I would fantasize about a god who would give these people exactly what they deserve. Of course thats just me being lazy. Instead I suppose I need to get out more and start opposing stuff like this.
Posted by: Robert | October 13, 2006 3:08 PM
What gets me frustrated is that according to the Greek Testament Jesus, the one whom we Christians claim to follow, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. How can some Christians say they're following the one who is the Truth when they lie? And it's not just being mistaken, or misinformed, or some error of judgement. It is calculated lies to gain power and make their belief law.
Posted by: Roger | October 13, 2006 3:23 PM
But apparently, Gillen is free to disregard the statements of his own organization regarding the law he wrote himself.
No, what they did was tell a lot of lies about this when they were trying to pass it and then, when it did pass they went on the attack against MSU and a couple of towns. Didn't they go after UofM too?
The problem is that most people who voted for it never read it. It's language was quite clear that it would open up the possability for such lawsuits. Truly a repulsive and vile tactic, but all to common with these kind of people.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2006 3:26 PM
"Religious groups" flaunting the Commandment against bearing false witness as a matter of policy.
Quelle surprise!
Posted by: RickD | October 13, 2006 8:03 PM
I wonder if we should write dictionaries into law?
How many advocates for the ban on gay marriage, or more explicitly, the erection of statutes, laws, or constitutional ammendments, get around the issue that equality and the 19th Ammendment as written into law can be read to specifically bar anti-gay legislation? I know at various places I have worked, there have been provisions made that gender AND sexual orientation are not prohibited in matters of how the company deals with you, yet these are rather comingled anyway. If a person is hitting you or performing some other legally-qualifying injury on you because you (as a man) are holding another man's hand, is this not because you are not a woman? This would be discrimination based on GENDER.
As I read it, orientation is NOT neccessary to write into the Constitution (any constitution) so long as it recognizes gender equality. Is there a flaw to this argument, and if not, why is this not more public?
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | October 14, 2006 6:42 AM
An aphorism for our time:
To lie like a fundie.
Posted by: khan | October 14, 2006 12:32 PM
Notice that in their blog post (the first ADF quote you give), they never say "same-sex." I suspect they mean to say that they've never tried to take away domestic partnership benefits for partners of the opposite sex--only from partners of the same sex.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | October 14, 2006 1:49 PM