Preserve Marriage Washington should use this graphic to describe itself, not its opponent.

The National Organization for Marriage-backed Preserve Marriage Washington is trying to discount the negative experiences of gays and lesbians by accusing Washington United for Marriage of lying in a new ad:

In a television ad which began airing on Friday, a mother shares the story of her daughter’s struggle to care for her dying same-sex partner, saying that after her daughter’s domestic partner suffered a seizure, hospital staff refused to telephone her daughter because they were not married.  There is only one problem: that is not an accurate depiction of the law, says Preserve Marriage Washington, the statewide grassroots coalition committed to protecting the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. [...]

Calling this a “pants on fire” misrepresentation, Preserve Marriage Washington Communications Director Chip White said, “This claim is a bold-faced lie.”

The anti-equality group makes the case that Washington’s “everything but marriage” law, approved in 2009, created hospital visitation protections for domestic partners, but that doesn’t mean the protections are guaranteed in each situation. What the law says and how a hospital reacts in an emergency will not necessarily be the same, because domestic partnerships are simply not recognized with the same familiarity and respect as marriages.

After New Jersey adopted civil unions, a commission found that those unions were not treated with the same respect as marriages, despite their supposed equality under the law:

Even if, given enough time, civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they are “not good enough” to warrant true equality.

By attempting to rebut those seeking the approval of marriage equality through Referendum 74, conservatives have helped to illuminate that “separate but equal” can never truly be equal. Watch the ad:

As part of its effort to extend marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples, the government of France is proposing changing all of its legal language to say “parents” instead of “mother and father.” But this slight change of language has fueled conservative religious panic, with Catholic bishops and news outlets alike calling it a “ban” on the words “mother” and “father.”

The Catholic church, a strong institution in France, has used the proposed change in language as an opportunity to espouse its opposition to France’s marriage equality efforts, with even the Pope deeming it a threat on straight couples and two-parent families:

The head of the French Catholic Church Cardinal Philippe Barbarin warned followers last week that gay marriage could lead to legalised incest and polygamy in society. He told the Christian’s RFC radio station: “Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society. This could have innumerable consequences. Afterward they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall.” [...]

And Pope Benedict XVI invited 30 French bishops to Italy to urge them to fight against the new law. He told them: “We have there a true challenge to take on. The family that is the foundation of social life is threatened in many places, following a concept of human nature that has proven defective.”

The move by the French government is not a ban, but a simple effort to promote inclusiveness. It signifies a step toward greater legal protection for gay and lesbian couples — part of French President François Hollande’s broader effort to fight for LGBT equality in his country. The blanket language change is meant to prevent confusion at lower levels of government, so that all government documents are consistent should the marriage equality law take effect, and so that all gay and lesbian couples can expect equal protection throughout the French legal system.

Twelfth in a series examining how anti-LGBT Senate candidates have worked to hurt the cause of equality.

State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R-OH)

Less than halfway through his first term as Ohio State Treasurer, Josh Mandel (R) is his party’s nominee against incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Unlike Brown, a strong supporter of LGBT equality, Mandel has a consistent record of opposing the LGBT community.

Over his four years as a state representative, two years as State Treasurer, and this Senate campaign:

1. Mandel has opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples. Mandel told a Tea Party rally in July that he would “protect the sanctity of marriage,” adding that “this is a fight that I will never, ever back down.” In May, he told the conservative Human Events that “Ohioans demonstrated in ’04 their support for traditional marriage when they overwhelming voted for an amendment saying just this. That’s my position, and it is an issue in this [Senate] race.”

2. Mandel thinks it should be legal to fire someone just for being gay. In 2009, as a state representative, Mandel voted against Ohio HB 176, the state’s proposed Equal Housing and Employment Act. That law would have made it illegal to discriminate against LGBT Ohioans in hiring, firing, and housing decisions based purely on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ironically, a Mandel spokesman claimed in 2011 that “Josh has always opposed discrimination against any American citizen.”

3. Mandel abandoned his earlier support for domestic partnership benefits. In 2000, as undergraduate student government president at The Ohio State University, he supported a plan to let qualified students buy student health insurance for their domestic partners. At the time, he told the campus newspaper, “The undergraduate student government representatives have been and will continue to advocate for domestic-partner benefits in public and private settings. Students want it, students deserve it, and the university has a responsibility to provide it.” Eleven years later, his spokesman told Politifact Ohio that Mandel now “feels he was wrong in college about domestic partner benefits and feels strongly that they should never be funded with taxpayer dollars.”

Watch Mandel speaking at the anti-LGBT CPAC convention:

In just a few years in politics, Mandel has already made it clear he will oppose equality at every chance. His election to the U.S. Senate would be a huge threat to LGBT people and families.

Paul Ryan reiterated his opposition to marriage equality, during a town hall in Cincinnati, Ohio on Tuesday. “The things you talk about like traditional marriage and family and entrepreneurship. These aren’t values that are indicative to any one person or creed or color. These are American values, these are universal human values,” he said in response to a question from the audience.

Watch it:

A same-sex penguin couple raising a chick together in a German zoo.

“Heteronormativity” or “heterosexism” are more articulate ways of understanding the concept traditionally referred to as “homophobia.” They refer to attitudes that may not be overtly anti-gay, but which continue to oppress gay people by reinforcing hetero-supremacy, a notion that heterosexuality is superior and preferable to any other sexual orientation. According to Focus on the Family’s resident ex-gay, Jeff Johnston, such attitudes are just a part of nature and a reminder that homosexuality is the equivalent of “sexual brokenness“:

Even in our sexual brokenness, we see glimmers of God’s design. One of those glimmers is that though humans have the capacity for all kinds of sexual behaviors, and despite sin, the world is largely heteronormative – and not arbitrarily so. Most cultures recognize the truth displayed in our bodies, that humanity is divided into two sexes, male and female. And almost all have some form of marriage – mainly to keep children with the husband and wife who procreated them.[...]

Same-sex lusts, fantasies and sexual activity violate God’s male-female design in a unique way. Instead of normalizing brokenness, calling homosexuality “good,” and identifying people by their sexual attractions, those who follow Jesus are called to bring redemption, grace and transformation.

This is a selective viewing of nature that ignores the reality of sexual diversity. Qualifying one sexual orientation as superior or as the only “good” orientation is the true distortion of “God’s design.”

Bob Vander Plaats, Rick Santorum, and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) are touring Iowa to campaign against the retention of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins in retaliation for his participation in a 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. The Iowa State Bar Association is following close behind to rebut their politicizing effort. And as the bus tour continues, the state’s newspapers are railing against the effort. This weekend, the Sioux City Journal addressed the implications for judicial integrity:

Regardless of their views about gay marriage, Iowans should understand: The independent foundation on which a strong court system is based is at risk of being weakened in our state. The kinds of organized campaigns we have witnessed in 2010 and again this year to drive out judges as political retaliation for a ruling establishes an unsettling precedent for a future in which the infusion of political ideology routinely will force Iowa judges to raise money and wage political campaigns to stay on the bench. [...]

According to Vander Plaats, he’s working to restore integrity to our court system. In our view, he’s doing the opposite – sucking integrity out of it.

Rekha Basu, columnist for the Des Moines Register, similarly said last week that “this campaign is nothing more than blackmail”:

Three honorable justices have already lost retention elections over this. Now a fourth could. That’s outrageous. But the damage goes beyond the individuals involved. If this campaign succeeds, it could subvert Iowa’s system of blind and impartial justice and force judges to wage costly campaigns to keep their seats when they issue unpopular rulings.

If justices must calculate the political fallout each time they rule in a controversial case, we could see rulings that are not based on justice, but on preserving careers.

Indeed, marriage equality was the unanimous ruling of the entire state Supreme Court, not partisan judicial activism. The freedom to marry is guaranteed by Iowa’s constitution, and anyone who respects that document should also uphold an independent judiciary, not a politicized one.