The Lies they Tell

From THe HuffPo:

Scott Moody of Cornerstone Policy Research, a religious-right organization, wants to regulate marriage in New Hampshire in order to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
Moody claims same-sex marriage "devalues" marriage, a claim that has never been precisely explained .....

Moody also claims that New Hampshire is the easiest state in which to finalize a divorce, and he tries to tie that to the population's supposed lack of value and faith in the institution of marriage. Why doesn't he talk about actual divorce rates? Perhaps because he's talking nonsense.... 

Of states with marriage equality, five of the six are in New England, yet as a region, New England has the lowest divorce rates in the country. The deep South, with the most anti-gay sentiments in the country, has the highest rates. States that don't "devalue" marriage have divorce rates 33-percent higher than those that do -- the complete opposite of what Mr. Moody's theory would imply. 

Moody says the main reason for marriage is to procreate, and that allowing gay marriage somehow reduces procreation, though how is unclear. Apparently this leads to a demographic "winter" with declining population. Denying gay people the right to marry will not magically turn them into heterosexuals anxious to breed like rabbits!.... 

Moody is manipulating facts. Birth rates have been steadily declining for well over a century. ...If you want to find a scapegoat for fewer births, blame capitalism and the prosperity it creates, not gay couples.... 

Mr. Moody draws conclusions based on the religious viewpoint of his organization and attempts to cloak theology in the guise of economics and statistical facts. Sadly for him, statistics don't support his assertions. 

Massive shift in Michigan

The Detroit Free Press reports,

In what Glengariff Group pollster Richard Czuba describes as a seismic shift in public opinion, even support for gay marriage has nearly doubled since a similar poll in 2004. That poll was conducted before voters approved an amendment to the Michigan Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

In October 2004, a Glengariff poll showed 24% of Michiganders supported marriage rights for same-sex partners, and only 42% supported legal recognition of civil unions. In the new poll, support for same sex marriage was 46.5% and for civil unions 63.7%. Forty-eight percent of state voters said they opposed adding marriage rights, the only one of nine gay rights issues not winning majority support....

Czuba said a shift in opinion was evident in almost every demographic group, including self-identified Republicans. He attributed much of the change to the sharply higher number of poll respondents who said they know a gay or lesbian person in 2009 (80.2%) compared with in 2004 (56%).

Well, that's just marvelous, isn't it? The problem is that before they had their equal rights epiphany, the voters of Michigan passed a broadly-worded Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage, which the court has interpreted to say bars civil unions, health benefits for same-sex partners, and other fundamental protections. Which, some believe, has further damaged the economy of a badly damaged state, by making it inhospitable to the "creative class".

So now what, Michigan?

Seems a Michigan lawmaker is making the first move:

The proposal announced by State Rep. Pam Byrnes faces an uphill climb. Michigan voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, effectively banning the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.....The joint resolution by the Democrat from Washtenaw County's Lyndon Township would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Michigan Legislature before it would be put to voters in the 2010 election.

Good luck with that. Chances are pretty bad.