Protect Marriage Washington’s togas ‘n tigers ad isn’t all they’ve lined up for Washington t.v. viewers. They also have two Prop 8-style lie-fests spooled up which feature people and events every Bay Stater in too well aware of. One video is 45 seconds and the other 60 seconds. Both videos are a re-working of an ad that PMW’s campaign manager Larry Stickney aired early March, 2009 in an effort to sway/bully solidly pro-equality legislators. Did he really think these bullying ads would change the votes of senators who have sponsored and/or voted for every DP bill to date? You can enjoy that set of videos here.
Let us dissect the lies in the 60 second ad. Shall we begin? But first, will you pledge to donate so many dollars per lie we find to the Approve 71 campaign so that we can effectively motivate our voter base?
VO: Last Spring in Olympia, a law was passed that redefines marriage to include homosexual relationships. This new law has far-reaching consequences. Like allowing public schools to teach that gay marriage is normal and healthy. Whether parents approve or not.
The sponsor of this law says, those who disagree with homosexual marriage should face being fined, fired or even jailed until they relent.
Text: In Massachusetts a similar law passed…
Text: As a result…school libraries across the state have added explicit pornographic books to normalize homosexual behavior.
Text: A parent was jailed overnight for demanding the ability to opt his kindergarten child out of homosexual instruction.
Text: Catholic Charities had to abandon adoption services rather than submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt children in their care…
VO: On November 3rd, vote to preserve marriage and protect our children. on Referendum 71, reject senate bill 5688. Paid for by Protect Marriage Washington.
Well, at least the first eight words are true!
Lie One:
VO: Last Spring in Olympia, a law was passed that redefines marriage to include homosexual relationships.
As the Referendum 71 ballot language written by our republican Attorney General states, “a domestic partnership is not a marriage”. If SB 5688 created civil marriages, the senior citizens entering into them would be considered married by the federal government. They aren’t. If the domestic partnership law created civil marriages, same-sex couples could marry, the legal contract would be called a marriage, it could be solumnized by a justice of the peace or consenting clergy, it would be transportable across state lines and it would ask the federal government to provide the couples so joined with the over 1,049 federal rights, responsibilities and obligations of civil marriage. The domestic partnership law does none of these things. Domestic partnerships are a parallel institution according state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners the same state-level legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations as those enjoyed by married spouses. But by domestic partnerships are a separate and inferior institution to civil marriage. Domestic partnerships are not marriage.
Lie Two:
This new law has far-reaching consequences. Like allowing public schools to teach that gay marriage is normal and healthy. Whether parents approve or not.
Washington state school curriculum does not mention marriage at all. There is no mention of curriculum in the domestic partnership law. There is nothing about the existence of domestic partnerships that mandates any changes to school curriculum.
Lie Three:
The sponsor of this law says, those who disagree with homosexual marriage should face being fined, fired or even jailed until they relent.
As Jeremy at Good As You has revealed, the text quoted by the ad was from an opinion piece written by a homophobic gay man named David Benkof. Benkof egregiously misrepresented WA state senator Ed Murray, who strongly refuted Benkhof’s lie, saying “That’s not at all what I said, and Benkof’s deliberate misrepresentation of my views does damage to them and to me.”
Lies Four and Five:
Text: In Massachusetts a similar law passed…
Text: As a result…school libraries across the state have added explicit pornographic books to normalize homosexual behavior.
Massachusetts has never passed a domestic partnership law. Curious that the ad doesn’t attempt to name the titles of the alleged pornographic books. Why have we never heard of this horror, it it is true?
Lie Six:
Text: A parent was jailed overnight for demanding the ability to opt his kindergarten child out of homosexual instruction.
David Parker was arrested when he refused to leave school grounds. He demanded that the school inform him before anything related to gay people was even mentioned in school, even casual conversation by other students. Federal judges all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed his subsequent lawsuit against the school.
Lie Seven:
Text: Catholic Charities had to abandon adoption services rather than submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt children in their care…
Catholic Charities choose to abandon adoption services, for which they received state money, rather than abide by the state anti-discrimination law to which that state money bound them. The funny thing is that Catholic Charities had a history of adopting out kids to gay parents, but the church hierarchy apparently decided to shut down the entire operation for dramatic effect rather than continue with business as usual: placing needy children with adoptive parents regardless of sexual orientation.
Lie Eight:
VO: On November 3rd, vote to preserve marriage and protect our children. on Referendum 71, reject senate bill 5688. Paid for by Protect Marriage Washington.
I
won’t count the “preserve marriage” lie because it is a repeat of Lie One. Rejecting the domestic partnership law does not protect children. In fact, it hurts children. Children of gay parents deserve to have the same legal protections that the children of people in heterosexual marriages have. To make them suffer because of animus towards their parents is cruel.
I count eight lies. Did PMW’s profligacy bankrupt anyone who pledged to donate so many dollars per lie?
Though this is an extension of Lie #8 and as such might roll into Lie #1. What I’m refering to is “Paid for by Protect Marriage Washington”. The way I see it this group actually wants to destroy the concept of marriage for a certain subset of the population, not protect it. As for the first ad how ridiculous can you get? We are not a theocracy for crying out loud! (Yes, I know I’m preaching to the choir.) I’m reminded of what John Quincy Adams said when he was once criticized for supposedly not matching his policies to God’s law and reminded that he took and oath on the Bible upon entering office: “That’s right, sir – I swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution; I did not swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible!” I’m also pretty sure “let no man tear asunder” is more reasonably an argument against divorce than marriage equality. Always wonder how many of these people have violated THAT precept in their own lives!
like i said below, i think the first ad is meant to energize their base, who are truly theocrats.
<
p>as for divorce, the protect marriage washington inner circle is swimming in it. their campaign manager (larry stickney) is on his third marriage. one of their leaders in the state legislature (rep. matt shea) is freshly divorced and their attorney/strategist/obama birther litigant (steve pidgeon) is in his FOURTH marriage, with children strewn across the country. they’ve done a lot of tearing asunder all on their own. you should read the transcript of the radio conversation between larry stickney and his pal steven pidgeon in which pidgeon brands no-fault divorce as the undoing of civilization. funny talking point from men who have chosen to initiate divorces themselves, eh?
…doesn’t say anywhere that WOMEN can’t put asunder! HA!
<
p>(Hope you’re doing well)
i think that ad is a motivational message to their base and not meant to be persuasive. gender-neutral language like “let on one put asunder” wouldn’t go over well with that crowd.
<
p>thank you for your well-wishes. i’m actually not doing so great. i never have gotten used to others voting on the strength of my citizenship. it makes me sick.
Has anyone from ERW or WAFST tried to get Obama to mention Washington State in tonight’s speech? Word has it he will speak about Maine, but for Obama to say “Approve Ref71” is not any different than his feelings about same sex marriage (ie rights but not the word).
<
p>Washington is a shame for so many reasons.