Lil White Lies: NOT (This Time!)

Interesting Fact: Texas and Utah had laws until 1971 that basically said it was permissible for a man to shoot his wife's lover if he caught them in an adulterous act. It was called passion shooting. The reverse of this was called homicide. -- TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. art. 1220 (Vernon's 1966), repealed by implication by TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§9.31-.33 (Vernon's 1974), which set out defenses against charges of homicide.

Covenant marriage is the topic of this ruling on a comment by Florida Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson with regard to his Republican opponent “Taliban Dan” Webster.

Covenant marriage is a more restrictive marriage contract designed to prevent divorce. Grayson makes the claim in an advertisement that this would “make divorce illegal” as well as “den(y) battered women the right to divorce.” It clearly doesn’t make divorce illegal, and this was 20 years ago, for Pete’s sake! The stats show that in the other three states where it is an option, very few couples choose it. And it was an option; it was a choice. While I imagine there are a few crazy men (or women) out there that might “choose for abuse”, I’m sure that there would have been some modifications if it had been passed into law. On the “pro” side it has one very good idea which should be universal: pre-marital counseling, albeit without the religious bent.

On the other hand, Alan Grayson clearly was trying to label his opponent as a Conservative extremist. A quick review of the Facebook PolitiFact commentary:

John Henry DeJong: “You know, I'm the LAST person to advocate for a republican candidate...but THAT'S NOT... WHAT THE GUY SAID. It's no less a deliberate misrepresentation than the ACORN and Sherrod slanders perpetuated by Breitbart et. al., and NO candidate of ANY party deserve the support of thinking people when they engage in such outrageously dishonest tactics.”

R. Mitchell Brown: “@John Henry DeJong--Yes, based upon most of the comments up until yours, I was wondering if anyone had actually read the entire article (or the previous one). Whoever said "Grayson is great" needs to step back and take a good hard look at his actions, notwithstanding how goofy his opponent is.”

Cliff Bryan Martin: “…sounds a little far fetched to me. I don't see even a half truth here.”

Ray Gross: Where Grayson is correct is in exposing Websters Extremists Views….Woman has no choice even if life Threatening. BIG Intrusive Government.”

Geoff Millar: “Reading some of the comments here is really disheartening. Webster sounds like he probably has some really fringe beliefs, and Grayson's use of the clips in this ad is simply despicable and wrong.”

Shawn Garza: “Rep. Grayson may not always give facts straight (and I'm a "truth hawk" when it comes to politicians), but he does have balls. I'll give him that. I think he should be the front man for the Democratic Party. Folks like Rep. Hoyer are dry... and boring. These days, politics is all about marketing and getting media coverage.”

Wish all the PolitiFact rulings were this easy.  Unfortunately, most of them are much more hazy and subjective than this.  This proves that yes, occasionally I do agree with Bryan White (here is another exception).  I did not think his usual grades were merited however.

Title and Link	September 25: Alan Grayson says opponent Daniel Webster wants to make divorce illegal, even for abused wives.
Who? Affiliation	Alan Grayson, Democrat
Ruling	Half True
Checkers	Aaron Sharockman: writer, researcher; John Bartosek: editor
# of words	1,351
#Sources Cited	12
Argument Summary	Daniel Webster introduced a bill in 1990 for voluntary “convenant marriage” which could not be “dissolved except for reason of adultery.” “The bill did not list physical or sexual abuse as grounds for divorce.”
Bryan’s Argument and “IS” word or Expression	Bryan applies the definitions PF uses for each ruling to the underlying argument as presented. He feels this was a case of it being more like containing “some element of truth but ignor[ing] critical facts that would give a different impression” (Barely True) as opposed to “Accurate but leaves out important details (Half True).
Quick Interpretation	This time I agree. It was not even close to being an accurate statement.
My criticism:	It’s an option and doesn’t make divorce illegal. And based on the info PF gleaned from other states, hardly anyone chooses covenant marriage anyway.
Guidelines "PF Excuses"	PF was more guilty in straying off the truth of the statement itself.
Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies	Grayson only: Used a bit of “slippery slope.”
DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING?	‘Ignoring the underlying argument also served to boost Grayson's rating…"Half True" was very generous’
My view	If there were more cases that Bryan would choose an unequivocal as this one, I would not need to do “Lil White Lies”.
Comments	I really admire Grayson because he is about the only Democrat to stand up to Republicans (he’s not a Cowardly Lion). He also says a lot of crazy stuff to point out their religious/conservative bent, and this is sort of a “slippery slope” along those lines (like “Die Quickly!”) . He won his spot “despite” the Republicanism of his district the last time, I’m sorry to say we may lose him.
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct)	Bryan is critical of my having this category, but this is a case where he clearly said the ruling was too generous, and should be a Barely True.
Bryan’s Grade	NO Pepés. This time.
PF Grade	Three Pepés. Bad call.

Have a cigar, Bryan.