Question:  Do voters have a right to expect factual accuracy and intellectual honesty from a former federal judge and candidate for governor sporting the uplifting campaign slogan “A Reason to Believe Again“?

Answer:  Yes.

Question:  Are voters getting either of those things from Brian Sandoval regarding his past support of the Marriage Protection Pledge and present support for SB283?

Answer:  No.  Or at least, not yet, according to this morning’s story in the RJ.

It is really quite simple.  Allow me to enlist the bold text feature in order to illustrate just how uncomplicated this is:

In 2002, Brian Sandoval pledged to oppose the endorsement of all marriage “imitations” including “domestic partnerships.”

Sandoval agreed that “awarding spousal equivalent rights to non-married couples defeats the civil purpose of marriage” and that “various “domestic partnership,” “civil union,” or “reciprocal beneficiary relationship” benefits belong exclusively to marriage”.

He also promised to “oppose any endorsement of marriage imitations, including “domestic partnerships,” “civil unions,” reciprocal beneficiary relationships,” or any similar arrangement.”

The quoted language is taken directly from Sandoval’s signed Marriage Protection Pledge which you can read for yourself here.

Fast forward to autumn of 2009, when Sandoval said he supported SB283, a law that made legally joined, same-sex couples eligible for privileges similar to married, heterosexual couples.  In other words, he supported a reciprocal beneficiary relationship granting perks that were previously only available to married couples.

Which in 2002 he explicitly promised not to do.

Can it be any more clear?  How can Sandoval — an accomplished attorney, formal state attorney general and former federal judge — escape what is evident to any honest thinker who can read at or above an 8th grade level?

There are only three possibilities before us in this matter.  Sandoval either signed a marriage protection pledge containing language he did not understand, supported a reciprocal beneficiary law containing language he did not understand or, sometime between 2002 and 2009, he changed his mind on the issue.

I think we all know which one is true.

And here’s the rub, Dear Readers:  There is nothing wrong with it.  Candidates and public officials have every right to reconsider and change their positions on issues over the course of time, as long as they are candid and explain their reasons.

But Brian Sandoval has done neither.

As the RJ story states:

Still, [Sandoval] disagrees with critics that his Question Two pledge doesn’t align with his support for a 2009 law, SB283, which made legally joined, same-sex couples eligible for privileges similar to married, heterosexual couples.

“I do think the language in the pledge is different than the bill that was passed,” Sandoval said.

No, the language is not different.  And saying so over and over does not make it so.

It is baffling that a man who hopes to lead Nevada into better times and a more perfect union is either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truth, clearly state his present position and then offer an intelligent argument for why it has changed.

Until he does, and in light of his other contortions, voters have no reason to believe.