A Marriage Encounter

This week Missouri had a filibuster and Australia talked about a plebiscite. Both of these sound like made-up words but it's all too true.

Missouri Democrats did their best to stop an anti-gay law, but Republicans were able to force a vote. We talk about the real-world implications of this law on witches and mule-owned monster truck dealerships. Then we sing.

Photo: Greg Westfall/Mule

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

No Mas, Roy Moore

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has come to resolve an attack on our sovereignty now! He's very upset that homosexuals are getting married, and he's written hundreds of pages to explain his feelings. So very many feelings. 

This particular bout of impotent rage was touched off by a ruling that Alabama does indeed have to obey rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States, for a variety of reasons including and not limited to the fact that Alabama is a part of this country. Gays can get married, even in states where people do not like them.

And so, Roy Moore has written a hundred and something pages about why that is a bad thing. Some highlights:

The opinion appeals more to emotion than law, reminding one of the 1974 song "Feelings" by Morris Albert, which begins: "Feelings, nothing more than feelings ...."

Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity. A "disgrace to human nature" cannot be cured by stripping the institution of holy matrimony of its inherent dignity and redefining it to give social approval to behaviors unsuited to its high station. Sodomy has never been and never will be an act by which a marriage can be consummated.

But the human being, as a dependent creature, is not at liberty to redefine reality; instead, as the Declaration of Independence states, a human being is bound to recognize that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by God. Those rights are not subject to a redefinition that rejects the natural order God has created. 

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being." 1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *39. Part of that natural order is the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24.

The great sufferers will be the children -- deprived of either a paternal or a maternal presence -- who are raised in unnatural families that contradict the created order.

Venturing beyond "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms," Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485, the Court anointed with constitutional protection the use of contraceptive devices by the unmarried, setting its seal of approval upon fornication.

Obergefell is but the latest example of the Court's creation of constitutional rights out of thin air in service of the immorality of the sexual revolution.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Many Things Go

This week we're soothing our burning hot Oscar Fever with a study that, according to researchers, somehow suggests that people oppose gay marriage because they think it makes their partners more likely to cheat. Or something like that.

It's confusing, which is why we get so distracted by conversation about Mary Tyler Moore, Kirk Cameron, and wieners.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Manny Pacquiao and the Bonobo Showboat

This week we're puzzling over Manny Pacquiao, a boxer/politician who's had some particularly unpleasant things to say about marriage equality. He's running for office in the Philippines and told an interviewer that same-sex couples shouldn't have the freedom to marry. And then he went much further, with Instagram posts about how LGBTs should be put to death, yikes.

Somehow, we also get on the topic of kangaroos (because they're all boxers), fetish nights, and as always, Star Wars. The episode concludes with me having a minor stroke.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

How do you Solve a Problem Like Scalia?

For the last few episodes, I've been revisiting the marriage work that I did as an reporter and activist over the last decade. And this week we'll be talking about some surprise changes coming to the US Supreme Court.

Here are a few things Antonin Scalia had to say about LGBTs:

• "[S]uppose all the States had laws against flagpole sitting at one time, you know, there was a time when it was a popular thing and probably annoyed a lot of communities, and then almost all of them repealed those laws," Scalia asked the attorney fighting the Texas law. "Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?"
• "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," he wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." 
• "But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]"
•  "[A job] interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs." 
•  "It doesn't say you can't have—you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."

Photo: CC BY 2.0 Stephen Masker - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Behind the Scenes at the Star-Studded Prop 8 Play

For the last few episodes, I've been revisiting the marriage work that I did as an reporter and activist over the last decade. And this week we'll be talking about 8 the play, the dramatic interpretation of the prop 8 trial. I worked behind the scenes on mounting the star-studded premieres in New York and LA, and here to talk about it with me this week is the delightful James.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Anti-Marriage Pledge Punishes Straight Fornicators

CC BY-SA 3.0
Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg

Believe it or not, there are still some people trying to undo marriage equality, and generally make life unpleasant for gay people. And also, it turns out, for straight people. 

I'm joined once again by my very special guest, James, to talk about this weird situation.

In Oklahoma, there are 26 bills -- possibly a record -- jostling to chip away at protections for LGBT people. Among them: a bill to legitimize "sexual orientation change" treatments. The bill specifically calls out some protected practices, and they're amazing: "physical pain, such as electroshock or electroconvulsive therapy, touch therapy, pornography exposure or vomit-induction therapy."

Federally, six candidates have endorsed the "First Amendment Defense Act," which doesn't just say that marriage should be between a man and a woman; but that only married heterosexuals should be allowed to have sex. Sorry, single straight people! Sorry, single moms! This proposed bills is really about controlling peoples' bodies -- gay and straight, and particularly women. 

Oddly enough, Trump is one of the only candidates who hasn't pledged to sign the bill. (He said he supported it in a letter, but declined to sign the pledge.) So we have a strange situation here where the GOP is making Donald Trump look like the reasonable guy in the room.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Can Marriage Equality Be Rolled Back?

The work on marriage equality is pretty much wrapped up in this country, but every now and then, anti-gay activists manage to find their way into the news by trying to roll back progress and stop LGBTs from getting married. What are their chances of success? Well, let's talk about it this week, with the help of a special guest.

The latest scheme to undo marriage involves a sneaky bill in Tennessee. If it had passed it would have created a special right for bigots by allowing nonprofits to discriminate against same-sex couples -- but ONLY against same-sex couples. The bill failed, probably in part because noncompliance with federal law would have cost the state $8 billion.

But there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 more bills like this in legislatures around the country. In this episode we'll talk about what those bills look like, how to spot the ones that are disguised, and what can be done to stop them.

Here's the Valentine's video we discuss in this week's episode:

Some supplemental viewing about anti-gay laws:

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

When Coming Out at Work Launched a Federal Investigation

This week, I'm talking to Davina Kotulski, a crucial figure in the modern marriage equality movement. Davina appears briefly in my book, but she played a key role in securing marriage in California and nationally. I spoke to her this week about what it was like to not just be a witness to history -- but to have an opportunity to shape it.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Interview with "Buffy" Writer Jane Espenson & Friends About Gays, Marriage, and Their Sitcom "Husbands"

This week, I'm looking back at a 2011 interview with the folks behind the webseries Husbands: Jane Espenson, Brad Bell, and Sean Hemeon. When it was created, the world in which Husbands took place was kind of a fantasy realm: marriage equality was just a fact of life. It's just five years later now, and it's a bit strange to think how recently that had to be speculative fiction.

Husbands is a sweet funny love story that skips over all of the activism of the last few years and gets to the heart of what it is to be a gay couple: falling in love, taking a chance on someone you love, and watching your life change together. It's where we are today -- reality finally catching up with something that could only be a dream a few years ago.

And now, here's my 2011 interview.

Did you notice how Jane referred to Husbands as the show that networks might do 3 years from now? Well, that's happened, in fits and starts. There's Modern Family, which includes a gay couple. There's New Normal, which featured married gays much more prominently, and ultimately, briefly. There was Looking, which was also with us for only a short time. And then there are shows like Vicious and Faking It, which are strongly focused on gay coupling and seem to have some actual longevity. And of course, it's worth nothing that the third season of Husbands was picked up by the CW network to stream online.

So, there've been some successes, and some ... let's call them learning opportunities. Obviously, having a gay couple on your show is no guarantee of success. But it's at least possible, and increasingly, unremarkable. And that's thanks, in part, to pioneers who imagined the world as it should be, even when it seemed like a far-away dream.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The Emotional Work of Turning Prop 8's Heartbreak into Triumph

This week, let's take a look back at Proposition 8. That's the fight that got me engaged with marriage, back in 2008. After the marriage ban passed, I started making YouTube videos to update people on what was happening with marriage. I'm going to play the audio for you, but if you want to watch the videos, some of which are a bit visual, you can find them in the shownotes for this episode at DefiningMarriage.com. 

Here's one of the first post-Prop 8 videos I did, from May of 2009. 

Well, I was wrong about it going back to the ballot. At the time, that seemed like the only option, since the convention wisdom was that a court case was too risky. But the day after I put this video out, AFER revealed their lawsuit, and the rest was history. And of course, you can read all about that history -- why it seemed so risky, why AFER decided they could take a chance, and the freakout that happened once the Prop 8 lawsuit was revealed -- in my book, Defining Marriage.

Let's jump ahead a year to July of 2010. I produced a recap of everything that had happened with Prop 8 to get everyone caught all caught up. At this point, we'd heard initial arguments in the Prop 8 case, but there had been no ruling yet.

How about that prediction from Nate Silver! Fifteen years to marriage equality? Turns out it was five.

Next up, a video from 2013, summing up AFER's case before the Supreme Court. I made this video for AFER the week before they presented oral argument, to help folks understand the case. 

I also produced a video showing the behind the scenes work that had gone into the case. We followed the plaintiffs and lawyers and PR people all over Washington, documenting what it was like to finally land at the Supreme Court. This one's pretty visual, so I do recommend checking DefiningMarriage.com to watch it if you can.

At that point, it was all up to the justices. And that meant a few tense months of waiting, and waiting, and waiting. While we waited, I put together another video that summed up the entire case, drawing on interviews and media coverage from 2008 to 2013. Here's a sprint through the entire case, from its very first day to the moments before the Supreme Court ruled:

Well I hope I'm not spoiling any surprises by revealing that we won. Here's a roundup of that day of decision, all of the celebrating, all of the rallying, all of the excitement and disbelief and joy.

Turns out we had some more surprises in store. Within a week, marriage had resumed in California, much earlier than anyone expected. It was a huge shock to everyone, and I was able to arrange to have cameras present to document the first weddings. Here's one more video -- you'll first hear some interviews from the day of decision, and then you'll hear footage from a few days later, when we suddenly learned that the couples could marry.

Please do get in touch and let me know your thoughts and questions on Twitter -- I'm @mattbaume. Check out my other podcast, The Sewers of Paris, for revealing personal stories about the entertainment that changed the lives of gay men. And don't forget to hop over to Amazon to get Defining Marriage in print or via download. If you do pick up a copy, it would mean a lot if you could leave an Amazon review with your honest opinion.

Thanks again for listening, watching, and reading!

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The Last Year-in-Review You'll Ever Need

This week, we're looking to the recent past. At the end of 2011 and 2012, I produced "year in review" videos that summed up everything that happened with marriage equality those years, and looked ahead to what was coming next. Each one's a fascinating little time capsule, and I'm happy to say that most of my predictions came true. Here's the first one, which I made almost exactly four years ago in December of 2011.

Hey, it's Matt in 2015. A couple interesting things jump out there. First is all that attention to civil unions. It was only four years ago that civil unions were a big deal, that it was considered good news when a state had them. Nowadays of course we'd think of them as insufficient, as separate but equal. We've come to expect full equality in just four years -- it's an amazingly rapid change.

Another detail from 2011 was that brief mention of a judge ordering the National Organization for Marriage to turn over a list of their donors in Maine. NOM was able to drag the release of that information until earlier this year, 2015. And guess what they were hiding? Their total number of donors in Maine was: 6. Yup, six. Of those, five were insanely rich people from around the country giving between 50,000 and 1.25 million, and the other was the knights of columbus. Money well spent.

Also in 2011, we were only just barely starting to see national surveys that showed a majority supported the freedom to marry. It was too soon to really be optimistic, because it was hard to tell if it was a trend or just a fluke. Well, now we know -- it was a trend. Support continues to surge upward, and at last count we had 50 with majority support.

Something that's striking about the end of 2011 video is the nervousness about how the votes in 2012 would go. We'd lose the battle in North Carolina, but that was the last time an anti-marriage ballot measure passed. Just a few months later, we won marriage in Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota.

And of course, there's that line I deliver at the end of the video: "I would really like to get married." That was one of the biggest changes of all between then and now. Just goes to show, you never know how future-you might surprise yourself.

Now let's take a listen to the video I produced a year later, in January of 2013. This one's more of a look ahead than a look back.

One thing I was absolutely right about: the Supreme Court rulings would be a big big deal only a few months later. But I didn't do a great job of describing them. "The culmination of AFER's work" really doesn't cover it. In fact, the ruling on DOMA was probably more important, since it set the stage for the ruling two years later that overturned marriage bans around the country. 

Another interesting detail: you can see the shift here, just a year later, from accepting civil unions to expecting marriage. States like Illinois, having just passed civil unions a year earlier, were quickly moving toward marriage. And civil union efforts in Colorado faltered in part because many organizers saw them as insufficient.

I also just want to point out that mention of Chris Christie, who had at the time just vetoed a marriage bill. As Republicans go, he's actually one of the least homophobic -- but that's still not saying much. Now he's running for president, and it's worth remembering that he's never been much of a friend.

A couple people have asked me if I'll go a year in review this year, and I figured, sure, I might as well. So here it is: we won. That's it. Your marriage equality year in review for 2015, and the last one you'll ever need to hear.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Revisiting the Gay Soldier Who Changed a Presidential Race

Photo: Tatjana Plitt, Gay Warriors

This week I'm looking back at my 2012 interview with Josh Snyder and Steve Hill. Steve was the soldier who asked a question about Dont Ask Don't Tell at a Republican debate, and was booed by a few people in the audience. None of the Republicans on stage reacted to the booing, and Rick Santorum responded to the question by dismissing Steve's military service. And so, before he knew it, Steve had become a minor celebrity in the presidential race. Everyone was talking about Steve Hill the soldier. But what most folks didn't know about was Steve the husband. He had recently married his partner, Josh, in an intimate ceremony at a meaningful gravesite. Here's my conversation with them from January of 2012, just a few weeks after the debate that changed their lives.

There are so many elements of their story that I can't imagine going through -- having to marry in private to protect your career; talking to your secret spouse from a war zone without any of the protections -- or even acknowledgement -- of marriage; and then of course becoming an international celebrity simply by speaking your truth.

I'm in awe of Steve and Josh's ability to endure these incredible experiences as calmly and gracefully as they have. And I have deep admiration for Steve's decision to pose that question. As he said, it was a big risk to step forward, and to give up his anonymity. But his motivation -- that "it was more important that the question get out there" -- speaks to a level of bravery to which I think we all aspire.

When I describe their wedding ceremony, I'm sometimes met with shock that anyone would want to marry over a grave -- and the grave of a stranger, no less. But I don't think Steve and Josh saw Leonard Matlovich as a stranger. In case you're unfamiliar with Leonard, he was a decorated Tech Sergeant who came out in 1975 Time Magazine cover story about gay service members. It was a turning point in the LGBT liberation movement, and for the rest of his life Leonard fought for equality.

So even though they never met, Steve and Josh had a close personal connection to Leonard. And when they married, they weren't just standing over his grave. They were standing alongside him, and along with all of the other queer service members buried in that section of Congressional Cemetery. They married surrounded by friends, and their marriage was a promise to continue the brave work that those men and women began.

In 2014, Steve wrote a book about his experiences called Soldier of Change. It has his inside take on the media frenzy around the debate, as well as his 20-year journey in the army and meeting Josh, plus a foreword by George Takei. Soldier of Change is available now on Amazon. 

And what do you know, so is Defining Marriage, the book on which this podcast is based! It's now out in audiobook, paperback, and ebook; so however you like your books, it's waiting for you.

Soldier of Change: From the Closet to the Forefront of the Gay Rights Movement

By Stephen Snyder-Hill

Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love

By Matt Baume

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

A Gay Couple's 60-Year Love Story

Hello friends, I'm Matt Baume, and thanks for subscribing to the Defining Marriage podcast, where we trace the decades-long evolution of marriage through the personal stories of those who lived through it. 

If you've been listening so far, every week you've heard me read one chapter of my book, Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love. If you'd like to hear the book, complete and unabridged, you can jump back and listen to the first 18 episodes of this podcast in order. Or you can pop over to Amazon and get Defining Marriage as a digital download, and now in paperback and audiobook.

Now that I've released the entire book as a podcast, for the next few episodes I'll be revisiting the marriage work that I did as an reporter and activist over the last decade. I've gathered news clips, interviews, and analysis from the dark days of marriage inequality.

This week I'm looking back at my 2011 interview with Alan Shayne and Norman Sunshine, a couple about to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their meeting. Back in 2011, they'd just written a book about their time together called Double Life, and it is an absolutely amazing story. Alan's career took him from acting on Broadway to running Warner Brothers Television; Norman is a celebrated painter and ad executive. Together they were first-hand witnesses to the monumental changes in how our culture views gay couples. Here's our interview from 2011 -- it was conducted over Skype, so the audio quality is a little scratchy, but it's worth sticking around for.

One thing that Alan and Norman commented on was how in the late 50s and early 60s they had no role models for a relationship of equals -- either gay or straight. That observation stuck with me for years after our conversation, because it really highlights that we're living in a remarkable time. Just a few decades earlier and it would be unthinkable that partners could be peers. It can be tempting to be nostalgic for simpler times, but remember, simpler isn't always better. 

That also reminded me of something Judge Vaughn Walker wrote in his 2010 ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Walker noted that marriage is in a state of constant change, and that the institution reflects social conventions of the time. Back then, he wrote:

"The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage."

Walker also wrote that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage:

"exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

If we have anyone to thank for gay marriage, it's really straight people. Sometime in the last few decades, they got their act together and realized that there's no reason why men and women should be required to fill different roles. And once marriage became more equal between women and men, restricting access by gender made less and less sense.

So, thanks, straight people.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

NOM's Cool Moose Obsession

Hello friends, I'm Matt Baume, and thanks for subscribing to the Defining Marriage podcast, where we trace the decades-long evolution of marriage through the personal stories of those who lived through it. 

If you've been listening so far, every week you've heard me read one chapter of my book, Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love. If you'd like to hear the book, complete and unabridged, you can jump back and listen to the first 18 episodes of this podcast in order. Or you can pop over to Amazon and get Defining Marriage as a digital download, and now in paperback.

Now that I've released the entire book as a podcast, for the next few episodes I'll be revisiting the marriage work that I did as an reporter and activist over the last decade. I've gathered news clips, interviews, and analysis from the dark days of marriage inequality. I'll play them for you, then talk about what was happening back then, which predictions came true and which were a little off the mark, and what's changed in the intervening years.

Last week, I covered three misleading national ads that the National Organization for Marriage ran after Prop 8 passed. This week, we'll take a look at some ads that the anti-gay industry targeted to specific states -- and we'll talk about why, in every case, they failed to have the impact they were supposed to.

We'll start with an ad from 2010 in Iowa. A few years earlier, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution required marriage equality. In 2010, three of those judges were up for re-election -- it's a weird quirk in some states voters pick their judges, even though voters have no idea what qualifies someone to be a good supreme court justice. NOM saw an opportunity here, and started running commercials that encouraged voters to throw the pro-equality justices out of office. I responded with a video of my own, debunking theirs. Here it is.

Watching it 5 years later, a couple things strike me about this video. Particularly -- why did NOM even bother? Even if these judges were kicked out, it's not like they their replacements were going to be able to reverse the decision. It was decided unanimously, and the judges themselves were pretty conservative. Anyone who replaced them would probably have voted the same way. So what was NOM even hoping to achieve?

Maybe they were trying to intimidate judges in other states. Rule for marriage equality, and we'll take your job away, something like that. Who knows.

Anyway, back in 2010, my little youtube video was no match for NOM, and all three judges lost their seats in the election. But then something funny happened -- two years later, another of the judges was up for retention, and this time he was able to keep his seat. In part because by 2012, NOM had a lot less money to spread around on dumb fights that didn't actually mean anything. We'll talk about that in just a little bit.

First, take a listen to another video from 2010. This one's from Minnesota, where a crazy anti-gay politician named Tom Emmer was running for governor. NOM ran ads supporting him, and I put out a video exposing their lies.

I have good news and bad news about how this election went. The good news is that Tom Emmer lost, by a lot. But then five years later, he ran for the seat in Congress being vacated by Michele Bachmann, and he won. So today, instead of screwing things up in Minnesota, he's screwing things up in the House of Representatives. 

In fact, the Republican party used Emmer as justification for introducing an anti-gay bill this year. They're calling it the First Amendment Defense Act, and it would eliminate nondiscrimination protections for a variety of groups. I'll do my best to explain their logic, even though it's a stretch and it's not going to make sense, but when Republicans introduced this bill, they cited Emmer's previous election losses as evidence that it's necessary. You see, the way they saw it, Tom Emmer spoke out against gay marriage, and then he lost an election, and that means that he was discriminated against by gays, and so businesses should be able to discriminate against gays.

Yeah. It's crazy. Especially in light of that Iowa ad, in which they were telling voters to kick judges out of office. How is that any different from voters rejecting Tom Emmer? I don't know. Like I said. it doesn't make sense.

And speaking of not making sense, let's listen to an ad they ran in Rhode Island in 2011. Back then, lawmakers were considering a marriage bill, so NOM ran some ads trying to intimidate them. Here's my response.

You can't see it on the podcast, but a cartoon moose kept popping up on screen during the ad. Sometimes it's like NOM wants to be made fun of.

Anyway, the Rhode Island fight got awfully bitter in 2011, and eventually the legislature passed a civil unions bill. And two years later, they passed a marriage bill. So, nice try, NOM, but you lose again.

Last I'm going to play for you two videos from 2012. One's from Washington and one's from Maine. Both states were facing votes on marriage, and the polling was very very tight. As usual, NOM put out ads full of lies, and as usual, I rebutted. Here they are:

Well, that was a huge waste of NOM's money, because they lost in both states, as well as in Minnesota and Maryland. 2012 was the last time marriage was on the ballot, and it's also the last time NOM ran election ads like these. I do kind of miss doing the rebuttals, but it's probably for the best that they're in the past.

Next week I'm going to take a look at a fascinating interview I did in 2011 with Alan Shayne and Norman Sunshine. They have an incredible story about growing up closeted, working on Broadway, becoming the head of Warner Brothers Television, being arrested, getting married, and sharing an absolutely amazing life together. You won't want to miss it.

Until then, listeners, please do get in touch and let me know your thoughts and questions on Twitter -- I'm @mattbaume. And leave a review on iTunes, those reviews make a huge difference. 

Don't forget to hop over to Amazon to get Defining Marriage in print or via download. And if you do pick up a copy, it would mean a lot if you could leave an Amazon review with your honest opinion.

Check out my other podcast, The Sewers of Paris, for revealing personal stories about the entertainment that changed the lives of gay men.

Until next time, friends… by the power vested in me by the internet, I now pronounce this podcast over.

Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Debunking NOM's Craziest Ads

If you've been listening so far, every week you've heard me read one chapter of my book, Defining Marriage: Voices from a Forty-Year Labor of Love. Well as of this week, We reached the end of the book -- which means that if you'd like to hear it, you can jump back and listen to the first 18 episodes in order. Or you can pop over to Amazon and get the book as a digital download, or now in paperback!

So what happens with the podcast? Well, starting with this episode, I'll be revisiting the marriage work that I did as an reporter and activist over the last decade. I've gathered some historical news clips, as well as interviews I conducted, and analysis from the dark days of marriage inequality. I'll play them for you, and then afterwards, I'll pop back in to talk about what was happening back then, which predictions came true and which were a little off the mark, and what's changed in the intervening years.

Let's start with three debunking videos. There was a period when the National Organization for Marriage was putting out a ton of commercials on TV and on the radio. They were, of course, full of lies. But unfortunately, NOM was really good at lying.

So as a nerdy gay with a YouTube channel, I took NOM's campaign as a personal challenge: how can I take something that sounds reasonable and show people that they're being lied to? And more importantly -- can I make NOM stop doing that?

The first clip you'll hear is from 2010. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker had just ruled the Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, and NOM was pissed. So they put out a radio ad to justify Prop 8 and attack Judge Walker. Here it is.

Hey, it's Matt in 2015 again. Reflecting back on that 5-year old video, a couple things strike me. The first is that, although you can't see this on the podcast, I had a lot more hair, and tragically, completely failed to style it before it left me. Oh well.

But perhaps more importantly -- did you hear how absolutely crazy NOM's lies were? Even back then, in order to justify Prop 8, they had to completely make up facts and misrepresent the contents of the ruling. You'll hear the same thing in this next NOM ad from 2011. Back then, the Justice Department announced that they would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and once again nom was PISSED. So they did what they always do: lie. Here's my debunking from 2011:

Okay, it's me in 2015 again. Well times sure have changed. Two years later, the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration -- and many of the politicians who were responsible for DOMA in the first place -- and overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. What strikes me about this ad is how NOM repeatedly conflates DOMA with marriage. It's as if, in their minds, DOMA and heterosexual marriage are the same thing. Like you can't have marriage if you don't have DOMA. Well we've been without it for a couple years now, and it sure does seem like straight people are still getting married. So THAT'S a relief.

Also at the end of NOM's ad, they ask you to go to DefendDOMA.com. I was curious about what DefendDOMA is, so I checked it out. Sure enough, it doesn't appear to have been updated since 2011. Their Twitter link is broken. NOM's link to sign a petition no longer works. And when you click on "Donate," you get an error message that says "unavailable." That's a real shame.

Finally let's take a look at a NOM video from October of 2012. It features a narrator explaining in meticulous detail why it's OK to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, and it's one of NOM's most polished an also most desperate videos. Although we didn't know it at the time, NOM had good reason to be desperate when they put this video out.

And we're back to 2015. I remember that being a particularly exhausting video to make, in part because of the density of misleading information. Remember, this was October of 2012, and NOM was getting desperate. Four states were about to vote on marriage equality -- Washington, Maryland, Maine, and Minnesota -- and although voters had rejected the freedom to marry in dozens of states in years past, for the first time ever, it was looking like the queers might actually win in 2012.

So this ad was part of a NOM strategy to reassure voters, no, don't worry, it's ok to discriminate. But of course they were fighting a losing battle at this point, and must have known it. Multiple polls showed a majority of Americans supported the freedom to marry. And sure enough, a month later, voters in all four states rejected NOM's ballot measures.

Strangely enough, they haven't made any videos since then. I'd like to take full responsibility for that. You're welcome, America.

Next week I'm going to take a look at some more debunking videos -- the clips we heard today were all national fights, but next week's will dissect the lies that NOM was spreading state by state. That includes the organization's brief and inexplicable obsession with a moose.

Until then, listeners, please do get in touch and let me know your thoughts and questions on Twitter -- I'm @mattbaume. And leave a review on iTunes, those reviews make a huge difference. 

Don't forget to hop over to Amazon to get Defining Marriage in print or via download. And if you do pick up a copy, it would mean a lot if you could leave an Amazon review with your honest opinion.

And check out my other podcast, The Sewers of Paris, for revealing personal stories about the entertainment that changed the lives of gay men.

Until next time, friends… by the power vested in me by the internet, I now pronounce this podcast over.

Music:Music:
In Your Arms Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Afterword

The dramatic conclusion! Will James and I ever get married? The answer may surprise you. (But probably not.) 

Plus: what's next? Well, now you can finally buy the print edition of the book! If you're enjoyed the podcast or the ebook, a dead-tree edition of Defining Marriage might make a wonderful gift, should a gift-giving opportunity arise in the near future. You can pick it up right now on Amazon.

Music:
Parisian Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Chapter 17: Set Course for the Alpha Quadrant

For years, national leaders told Josh Boschee that North Dakota had no place in the marriage equality movement. “It’s not where the battlefield is,” they told him. It was just conventional wisdom that his state would never be a player, and he wouldn’t have a role.

And so he was resigned to sitting the fight out. “We’re just going to hope and pray that the other states take care of it for us,” he said.

But as one state after another won the freedom to marry, the conventional wisdom made less and less sense. And he saw the harm of waiting on the sidelines — for example, his neighbors, Celeste and Amber, were expecting a third child in a few weeks but couldn’t appear together on their own kids’ birth certificates.

Sure, the national groups said North Dakota needed to wait. But the more he thought about it, the more he realized: “You know what? We don't need the national groups. We'll just do it on our own.”

Over the course of just a few decades, marriage had gone from an impossible joke to an attainable goal, even in the most unlikely of states.

It was a messy process, unpredictable and littered with setbacks. But it was also a process of growth, of improvement, of coming together for the betterment of all involved.

Just like marriage itself. 

Music:
Parisian Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Chapter 16: Love and Commitment

At first glance, it might not seem like Thalia Zepatos had a personal stake in the marriage equality movement. After all, she was straight, with no kids of her own.

But she had also experienced the pain of second-class treatment. It was during a particularly violent campaign for nondiscrimination protections, during which staffers’ offices were broken into, Thalia’s car was followed, and innocent queer bystanders were attacked and killed by skinheads.

After that experience, Thalia was determined to end such abusive treatment. She saw that progress had been slow and that public opinion wasn’t moving fast enough, and so she dedicated the next few years of her life to searching for a better way to show voters why the freedom to marry mattered.

And then, at last, she discovered a solution: a message that was so obvious it was right in front of everyone all along. Her research showed that it worked — but it had yet to be tested in an actual election.

By 2012, there was no time for further testing. Four states had marriage bans on the ballot, and Thalia had convinced campaign managers in all four states to adopt her new strategy. They were about to find out whether it would work.

Music:
Parisian Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Chapter 15: Welcome to the Other Side of the Rainbow

Senator Ed Murray had a roadmap to win equality in Washington. It would take years, and for much of that time, nobody believed he could do it.

That’s because a key ingredient of his plan was time and patience. Rather than pushing for full marriage, Ed wanted to take a slow-motion approach, gradually educating legislators about marriage over the course of years before putting a marriage bill in front of them.

Impatient allies didn’t see the point. But Ed’s strategy was vindicated one day in 2012 when he was sitting in his office with his partner Michael, both of them collecting themselves after an emotional testimony about why their long relationship deserved equal treatment under the law. In walked Mary Margaret Haugen, a longtime legislator with a conservative district. She had voted against marriage equality in the past, but today, she told them, she had changed her mind. It was simply the right thing to do, she realized, even though it meant she would probably lose her seat.

That’s when it was clear that the tide had turned. People who would never have supported the freedom to marry before now found themselves switching sides, even if it came at a great cost.

“We have been on a long journey,” Governor Christine Gregoire said. After years of work, she said, the marriage bill was “the final step. It is the right step. We have finally said yes to marriage equality.”

But it wasn’t the final step after all. Instantly, anti-gay groups began gathering signatures to put their definition of marriage on the ballot that November. Winning over the conscience of the legislature was a multi-decade effort; now, Ed had eleven months to win over the conscience of the whole state.

Music:
Parisian Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) 
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/