Sneakiness wins in Michigan court
"When Michigan voters headed to the polls in 2004 to decide the fate of a proposed amendment to the state constitution, they'd been told the following by its lead proponent:
"'(This) has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman,' said Marlene Elwell, campaign director of Citizens for the Protection of Marriage.
"CPM's Web site declared the group's purpose was 'for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Period.'
"And its brochure told voters: 'This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life.'"