« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
09/17/2009
Duplicity, thy name is Stand For Marriage Maine
FACT: When the "Yes on 1 campaign" debuted their first TV spot, it featured a link saying that viewers could go to their website and read a letter from legal scholars that supposedly supports their ad's claims. When viewers of the ad went to their site and checked the supplemental materials, the only letter they saw was one that had been co-penned by Thomas C. Berg, Robin Fretzwell Wilson, Carl H. Esbeck, and Richard Garnett, because that is the only supporting document that SFMM provided at the time (As further evidenced in screencap at left, where they say "read THE letter," as in singular). So clearly, anyone who chose to respond to the ad or the referenced letters could only speak to the one sole missive that SFMM provided.
FACT: On the same day that SFMM released their ad and the supporting letter, Jesse Connolly from the "No on 1" campaign issued a response wherein he (rightly) decried "the same sort of misinformation and fear-mongering that helped pass Prop 8 in California." He tackled the TV ad as a whole, not highlighting one specific instance or personality featured within. And he didn't call anyone a "liar" -- he said the ad itself is filled with "fear-mongering, lies and distortion." This distinction matters.
FACT: Douglas Laycock is a same-sex marriage supporter who has his own personal opinions about the potential for marriage equality to get in the way of religious convictions. Those of us who follow these sorts of things are completely familiar with him. He injected himself into the debate in Connecticut, helping to convince that state legislature to adopt certain religious protections in their marriage bill. Some gay people agree with these kinds of protections, and others disagree. But two things are for certain: (1) Mr. Laycock speaks for himself, not the marriage equality movement as a whole. (2) Mr. Laycock feels strongly about the religious protections, but he also supports full civil marriage equality for gay couples. So it would be logical to assume that even though he sought religious stipulations while the bill was being debated, he likely opposes the "Yes on 1" agenda in this, the referendum process.
FACT: Douglas Laycock did, apparently, write a letter to Gov. Baldacci encouraging him to follow counterparts like Hew Hampshire's Gov. Lynch and adopt amendments that specifically highlight religious protections. But as mentioned in bullet point one: SFMM did not reveal this letter on its website at the time that they released their ad. The only revealed the one supporting doc. So no non-clairvoyant person who responded to their ad on the day of its release can be held accountable for whatever Laycock's letter does or does not say! It was not a part of SFMM's supplemental materials until today!
Okay, now go read this latest bit of desperation from the Stand For Marriage campaign, who have just reveled both the following press release and the Laycock letter:
No on Question 1 Campaign Claims of “Fear-mongering, Lies and Distortions” Undercut By Their Own Legal Ally
Protect Maine Equality Can’t Shoot Straight – Campaign Shot Ricochets To Hit Themselves In The Foot
Portland, ME – In a misguided attempt to avoid discussion of legitimate issues raised by the proposed legalization of homosexual marriage, the No on Question 1 campaign has misfired, accusing legal scholars – including a prominent supporter of same-sex marriage – of engaging in “fear-mongering, lies and distortions.” The scholars are on record of pointing out the inherent legal conflicts between the rights of people who sincerely oppose homosexual marriage and the rights of same-sex ‘married’ couples if homosexual marriage is legalized.
“Unfortunately for Jesse Connolly and the No on 1 campaign, the shot they thought was aimed at us instead has ricocheted and is now squarely lodged in their own foot,” said Marc Mutty, Chairman of Stand For Marriage Maine, the official Yes on Question 1 campaign. “One of the legal scholars they dismiss as ‘liars’ includes Professor Douglas Laycock, a prominent scholar who supports homosexual marriage. In their desperation to avoid the legitimate discussion of serious issues raised by the legalization of homosexual marriage, the No on 1 campaign has wounded itself and done a great disservice to the people of Maine.”
Stand For Marriage Maine is running a television ad featuring Boston College Law School Professor Scott FitzGibbon discussing the consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage. Professor FitzGibbon references a letter sent to Governor Baldacci from four prominent legal scholars from:
University of Notre Dame Law School;
Washington and Lee University School of Law;
University of Missouri; and
The University of St. Thomas School of Law.
Responding to the commercial, No on 1 Campaign Manager sent an email saying, “Our opponents know that to defeat us, they need to flood the airwaves with fear-mongering, lies and distortion. They need to mislead the good people of Maine and change the subject by inventing so-called consequences of marriage equality.”
Unfortunately for Connelly, a prominent pro same-sex marriage legal scholar, Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School, separately wrote Governor Baldacci endorsing the conclusions of the other scholars. “…[T]heir analysis of potential legal conflicts is accurate, and their proposed statutory language is necessary to legislation that is fair and just to all sides.” Professor Laycock went on to say, “I support same-sex marriage. I think the pending bill can be a great advance for human liberty. But careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those religious believers who cannot conscientiously participate in the new regime.”
Attached is Professor Laycock’s letter. The amendments that he and the other legal scholars suggested be incorporated in LD 1020 were not included in the legislation.
“The conflicts that LD 1020 creates for people of faith are real and serious concerns. Respected legal experts on both sides of the issue agree on this. It’s time for the No on 1 campaign to acknowledge these concerns and address them, rather than simply dismiss them with vitriolic campaign rhetoric. The legal scholars, including those who support same-sex marriage, are not part of our campaign. They have raised important issues that the people of Maine are entitled to know about. We intend to make sure that they do,” said Mutty.
No on Question 1 Campaign Claims of “Fear-mongering, Lies and Distortions” Undercut By Their Own Legal Ally [SFMM]
The Laycock letter, posted today for the first time: Laycock letter to Baldacci
So you see what they are trying to do? They quite obviously held the Laycock letter as part of their strategy, thinking they would flip the script on those who spoke out against their ad. But in doing so, they have only shown their own deceit! They never revealed the letter that they are trying to use against Jesse Connolly, and Mr. Connolly never called anyone a "liar"! How could he even call someone a liar when that person was not part of the revealed strategy?!? Following Marc Mutty's logic, the "No on 1" campaign must consider the words of any and everyone who has written Gov. Baldacci on the subject of marriage before they are allowed to respond to the "Yes" side. It's patently absurd!
But beyond this practically flawed "gotcha" strategy, it's beyond ridiculous that the "Yes" campaign would even try to use Mr. Laycock's letter against the "No" side at all! Because (a) while Laycock does agree with the others in terms of religious exemptions/protections, his letter is pointedly dismissive of "the most demagogic opponents of same-sex marriage"; (b) his letter was his own personal opinion, one that is rejected as overcautious and even fearful by many others; and (c) his letter was speaking to his own personal wants for the legislative process, not for this current referendum campaign. So even if SFMM had used it from the get-go, Jesse Connolly could have stood 100% by his "fear-mongering, lies and distortion" response to the ad without shooting himself in the foot. Because one man's personal opinion, no matter of how gay-supportive he may be, does not change the course of a TV ad that is dripping with inaccuracy, fear, and deception!
We would counter their charge and say that they are the ones who are shooting their own side in the foot. However, that would require them to first have at least one leg to stand on!
Your thoughts
I would postulate that even if they had put up the Laycock letter originally, the No on 1 ad is still factually correct. They lying liars are using the same lies and fear mongering that they used in California - even if they were relying on the Laycock letter.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 17, 2009 4:54:35 PM
I hope your exposé appears on the "No on 1" press release. We have to keep an eye on every tactic the "Yes" people pull against us.
Posted by: ---- | Sep 17, 2009 5:07:22 PM
Good reporting, but I fear that most people only remember whats and not whens.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 17, 2009 5:49:42 PM
I'll ask this, then. If his own personal opinion, one which he has studied (as have others, and come to the same conclusion), is that religious liberties could be oppressed (which we have seen in Massachusetts), how are the opinions of those who disagree with him any better? You cannot argue with facts, such as the closing of the Catholic charities in Massachusetts due to a religious belief, or the Methodist owned pavilion in New Jersey that lost partial tax exemption due to a fundamental belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. When opinion comes up against opinion, neither you nor anyone can say that theirs is the better without having the backing of fact. The Yes on 1 side has provided fact. The No on 1 side has provided... Jesse Connolly calling the Yes on 1 side fearmongers and liars.
lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
liar: a person who tells lies.
In saying the ad was filled with lies, Jesse is calling all those lawyers in that ad "liars".
Posted by: Douglas | Sep 17, 2009 7:26:54 PM
Doug: Judging by your ip address and path in getting to this post, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. If I'm right (and the margin of error is very slight), then you should really reveal your affiliations when posting!
As for the merits of your comment:
-The New Jersey situation is a complete canard, one that has been refuted time and time again. We are sick of doing so! http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/04/hey-nom-youre-embarrassing-yourselves.html
-Catholic Charities chose to close their services rather than comply with civil law. They wanted an exemption that did not hold constitutional muster. We are a nation of laws.
-Saying the ad as a whole is filled with lies is NOT AT ALL as saying pointedly that the lawyers themselves are lairs. That should not need explanation. But even if it were the same thing, the point remains that the Laycock letter was not in play at the time that Connoly made his statement. They (you?) were only using the other group letter. So even if Connoly did call these lawyers liars (which he absolutely did not), that "lair" claim would not have applied to Laycock anymore than it would've applied to any Joe Schmo who wrote Baldacci!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 17, 2009 7:47:30 PM
Doug and the other radical anti-gay activists are simply repeating the same lies and fear mongering they did here in California with Prop. 8. Their strategy is always to take what they are doing, deny it, and falsely claim others are doing the very same thing. Thus, they accuse everyone else of lying when they are the ones doing all the lying. (Same thing they did here.) What they need to do is stop trying to interfere and impede the religious liberty of pro-equality Americans and churches.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 18, 2009 5:19:21 AM
comments powered by Disqus