Update: Plante told the Providence Journal that he will not be joining NOM’s Minnesota operations.

The National Organization for Marriage, a Washington, D.C.–based group that opposes rights for same-sex couples, has solicited the help of Christopher Plante in its Minnesota operations in the run-up to a 2012 vote that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota’s constitution. Plante is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island. Plante opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples including civil unions and even the right for same-sex couples to make funeral arrangements together. 

The Providence Journal notes that Plante came to Minnesota to assist NOM and the Minnesota for Marriage coalition at the Minnesota State Fair and has no plans to work for the M4M coalition.

According to the Catholic Spirit, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Plante joined up with the Minnesota for Marriage Coalition, which is made up of three groups: the Minnesota Catholic Conference, NOM and the Minnesota Family Council, during the state fair.

Over the weekend, Plante accused opponents of the amendment of being intolerant against groups that oppose rights for LGBT people. He told CBS that he heard rumors that activists may try to glitter the Minnesota for Marriage booth at the Minnesota State Fair.

“We understood it might happen,” he said. “Quite honestly, it says more about the other side. We are here exercising our right and that says more about the tolerance from the other side.”

Recent statements by Plante were ruled “Pants on Fire” false by Politifact. Earlier this year during a debate at the Rhode Island General Assembly on whether to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, Plante said, “The people of Rhode Island don’t want same-sex marriage.”

Politifact said that that simply wasn’t true.

We disagree. Of course it’s a statistical claim. When you say “the people of Rhode Island don’t want same-sex marriage” you’re saying that more than 50 percent would oppose such legislation.

The most recent polls from Brown, RI-GLAD and even NOM-RI — Plante’s organization — show the opposite.

Not only did the trends in the NOM-RI and RI-GLAD polls show opposition to same-sex marriage evaporating, the Brown and RI-GLAD polls showed that the public wants gay couples to have the right to marry, even if you assume that every voter who didn’t express an opinion was opposed to gay marriage.

Plante’s assertion isn’t just false. It’s ridiculous. We rate it Pants On Fire!

Plante isn’t a stranger to making incendiary comments about the LGBT community. Blogger Jeremy Hooper noted that Plante said that same-sex couples treat their children like “accessories.” He claimed that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy. And he said that if same-sex marriage was legalized, it would be forced into schools.

Plante, in his work for NOM in Rhode Island, has opposed strengthening hate crimes laws.

“NOM (National Organization for Marriage) Rhode Island is pleased that the governor chose to veto the hate crimes legislation that was before him this year on the grounds that hate crime legislation like this has been used in other places, such as Vermont and Connecticut, to further the homosexual marriage agenda,” he said in 2010.

Plante has also opposed civil unions.

“We’re against civil unions simply because where they have been enacted, civil unions have been used to force the courts to judicially change the meaning of marriage. What we don’t stand against is evaluating the law on a case-by-case basis,” he said in an interview with the Warwick Beacon.

Plante even opposes funeral rights for same-sex couples. In 2009, then-Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican, vetoed legislation that would have granted rights for same-sex couples to make end-of-life decisions. The bill passed the Rhode Island Assembly almost unanimously, but Plante urged lawmakers not to override the veto.

“NOM – Rhode Island respectfully requests that you vote to sustain the Governor’s veto both to avoid creating unnecessary law and to not move Rhode Island closer to recognizing homosexual-marriage,” Plante wrote. Despite [homosexual-marriage activists] claims to the contrary, these bills serve simply as ‘Trojan Horses’ for homosexual-marriage.”

Ignoring Plante, lawmakers voted to override the veto.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

An unprecedented number of bills has been introduced this legislative session that would grant same-sex couples legal status similar to that of married couples. But the five bills have died quiet deaths, as leaders say they don’t have the votes to pass them, even out of DFL-dominated committees.

Advocates say the energy around marriage equality this session is new. “We went from fighting a constitutional amendment just three years ago to now seeing marriage equality bills being introduced … and instead of having a ‘defeat the constitutional amendment’ rally there was a ‘Freedom to Marry’ day rally,” said Jo Marsicano, communications director for OutFront Minnesota.

“This has clearly been made possible by the election in 2006 of a fair-minded majority with the majority being fortified in 2008.”

But for many, this session has been a disappointment. All bills in the Legislature must make it through a committee by deadline in order to stay alive. None of the marriage equality bills made it that far.

One measure, HF 1655, SF 1988 would have created a study group to “determine the extent to which structural barriers exist that negatively impact single people, same-sex couples, and co-habitating couples.” Another, HF1740, SF1732, would have allowed marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage is legal to be recognized by Minnesota. HF0999, meanwhile, would create civil union contracts as the standard across the state by removing the religious-based “marriage” from statutes.

HF893, SF120, the Marriage and Family Protection Act, would make marriage a gender-neutral institution in Minnesota, and
HF1644, SF1210 would beef up that language by specifically exempting religious leaders from having to perform or participate in any marriage for any reason.

Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis, is the chair of the Civil Justice Committee, the first hurdle for the bills. He is also chief author of the civil unions bill. He had scheduled informational hearings for the bills — but not a vote — which left the bills sitting in committee. Advocates said they had enough votes to pass the bills, but Mullery insisted they didn’t.

Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, the chief author of the Marriage and Family Protection Act, agreed with Mullery.

“I strongly support Joe Mullery and his decision to have an informational hearing only. Why? The votes do not exist in that committee at this time to pass these bills. Many supporters believe that a vote to defeat the bills is more harmful than no vote.”

David Strand, one of dozens of citizens who have been lobbying legislators almost daily for marriage equality this session, said, “We learned that we and Mullery were counting the votes differently as one of the votes in favor has vascilated back and forth,” he said. “Without certainty whether the votes were there to pass the bills, he didn’t want the bills to be killed for the biennium by a tie vote.”

Doug Benson, a citizen who wrote the Marriage and Family Protection Act and lobbied heavily for its consideration, was disappointed that the bill is technically dead for the session.

“I naively assumed that huge DFL margins in both houses of the Legislature in a non-election year would provide a secure enough environment for the DFL leadership to allow some effort to end state sponsored discrimination against our families to progress this session,” he said. “My education continues.”

But he says they will continue to work on the issue next year. “There is a lot of outdated thinking, fear-mongering and passive anti-gay bigotry that must be dealt with at the Capitol in order for us to move forward. Those obstacles will be overcome.”

Marsicano of OutFront Minnesota agreed that marriage equality still faces serious roadblocks. “We know that marriage equality won’t become a reality under the current governor,” she said. “So we’re looking ahead to the election of a pro-equality governor as one of the vital steps in this campaign.”

The bill is being offered by Reps. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis; Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville; and Tom Tillberry, DFL-Fridley.

The civil unions bill is in addition to the Marriage and Family Protection Act, which would make all marriage laws in Minnesota gender-neutral, and several bills offered by Project 515, including the Final Wishes Act, designed to fix statutes that discriminate against same-sex couples.

Here’s how the Minnesota Family Council laid out its version of events for supporters:

“A recent decision in New Jersey found a Methodist church group, which refused to rent out its property for a civil union ceremony, guilty of discrimination which will mean either fines or a requirement that they rent out the facility for civil union ceremonies,” writes Family Council President Tom Prichard. “No doubt similar actions will be taken against churches once homosexual marriage becomes the law.”

National religious right groups agree. “The clash between same-sex unions and religious freedom has arrived, and that clash will increase,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based law firm and Christian ministry. “Whenever a right is granted to same-sex unions, then a right is taken from religious liberty and freedom of speech. Same-sex unions pose a serious threat to freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion.”

But what’s missing from the story is that the church in question, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, got tax breaks from the state of New Jersey because it has for years allowed the public to use its Boardwalk Pavilion for secular and religious events. The church also received state funding to improve the infrastructure around the pavilion. Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster requested to have their civil union ceremony at that pavilion and paid taxes that went to the church to pay for the pavilion.

The religious right is outraged that taxpayers would want to use a facility they helped pay for.

“This decision merely highlights where society is headed if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land,” wrote Prichard. “There’s no doubt in my mind that homosexual activists and their kindred spirits will impose acceptance on those who disagree with them. Again, supposed claims of ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect for diversity’ are only a way one way [sic] street.”

But the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights was pretty clear when it handed down its ruling against the church on Dec. 29: “When it invites the public at large to use it, the Association is subject to the Law Against Discrimination, and enforcement of that law in this context does not affect the Association’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion.”

It’s another case of the religious right’s wanting its cake (taxpayer funds) and eating it too (denying rights to gays and lesbians).

Cizik had been a lobbyist for the NAE for more than 28 years.

“In a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview on National Public Radio, Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents,” said Anderson in a statement. “Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values, there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”

Here’s what he said in the interview with NPR’s Terry Gross:

“Two years ago,” said Gross, “you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more and more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on gay marriage?”

Cizik responded, “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

On Obama, Cizik said, “It would be possible for evangelicals to disagree with Barack Obama on same-sex marriage and abortion and yet vote for him.”

“I happen to think in the primary he was the best choice,” Cizik added.

While Anderson said those statements weren’t appropriate for an NAE representative to make, his decision to encourage Cizik’s resignation was likely influenced by the most influential evangelical of them all. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has had it out for Cizik for years.

Response to Cizik from other corners of the religious right have been fierce.

“Richard Cizik of NAE Says Christians Can Vote for Pro-Child Killing Politicians,” read one press release. Ingrid Schlueter, co-host of the nationally syndicated Crosstalk Radio Talk Show, wrote “Richard Cizik seems more concerned about impressing NPR’s liberal audience with his broad-mindedness than being faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse said, “I think, perhaps, my dear friend Rich has been inside the Beltway for too long and has swallowed too much of the NPR and Vogue Magazine Kool-Aid.”

The American Family Association’s Tony Perkins, agreed and asked, “How else can you explain enthusiastic support for what will probably be the nation’s most pro-abortion, anti-family president in our nation’s 232 year history?”

On Thursday, Anderson explained how the remarks about Obama influenced the resignation of Cizik in an interview with Christianity Today. “Generally in America, people don’t say whom they vote for. I think in listening to the interview, it seemed to me that [Fresh Air host] Terry Gross was surprised that he said whom he voted for,” said Anderson. “And he declined to say whom he voted for in the general election. But for NAE and all of us who seek to be a bipartisan voice, it’s generally not in our best interests to declare whom we vote for.”

Ironically, just days after his fateful interview with NPR, Cizik was criticized by progressive Christians for his signature on a full-page ad in the New York Times that accused gays and lesbians of bigotry.

Photo: Richard Cizik via American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith