There’s a man in charge of an organization that has led a fight in multiple states and is setting up a national headquarters in Washington, D.C., that a reporter for the Washington Post characterizes as a man who speaks to the “movable middle, reasonable people looking for reasonable arguments to assure them that their feelings have a rational basis.”

This man, according to the reporter, is likeable, a thoughtful talker.

His “children are precocious and sweet; his wife is gracious and funny.”

This man, Brian Brown, will be home late from work because, according to that newspaper profile, he’s “going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane.”

And do you know what Brian Brown is “quietly” crusading for?

He’s crusading — and not so quietly — to keep same-sex marriage illegal in most states and overturn same-sex marriages in states where it is now recognized.

Brian Brown is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, and he’s troubled that some people think he’s a bigot for trying to block our access to equal treatment under the law.

“He tries to help people see that opposing gay marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition,” the Post story on Aug. 28 read.

I don’t like to publicly complain about the press. For me, that’s akin to airing the family’s dirty laundry — of which my family has none, by the way.

But I’m offended with the Post story as both a journalist and as a lesbian who someday wants to marry her partner — a 16-year engagement ought to be evidence of our commitment.

I’m troubled by the one-sided, gratuitous, assuming, fawning nature of the story — offered as a news report, not a column.

And troubling is the omission in the story of any serious exploration of Brown’s “rationale” argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Essentially his simplistic argument is that he says historically and traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman and it is rational to never change. If the reporter had simply Googled “same-sex marriage history,” she would have realized that Brown means for white people, marriage historically has been between a man and a woman. She would have found numerous references to same-gender marriage in Africa and among Native North Americans.

And, while the reporter glosses over some NOM “missteps,” such as the offending “Gathering Storm” commercial intended to rally voters against gay marriage in California, where is the reference to the ethics questions involving NOM in Iowa and Maine?

Referring to NOM’s anti-gay marriage work in Iowa, W. Charles Smithson, director and counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, recently wrote to Brown: “I want to remind you that an ‘insignificant amount’ of NOM’s income is permitted to come from business corporations. Thus, as you solicit for your organization please keep this in mind in the event that you are going to continue to be active in Iowa elections.”

Smithson also referred to NOM’s claim that it need not disclose donors to its campaign against gay marriage in Iowa.

“If people are going to donate to your organization for express advocacy activities in Iowa and those donations exceed $750 in the aggregate in a calendar year, your organization will be required to form a PAC and disclose those contributors. The independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

In Maine, the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices recently notified Brown that it will decide Oct. 1 whether to “conduct any investigation” regarding alleged fundraising violations by NOM and the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.

Did NOM raise money — as much as $250,000 — for the campaign to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law and then donate the money to Stand for Marriage without filing campaign finance reports?

We know NOM can raise that kind of money. The organization helped bankroll the costly Proposition 8 campaign in California.

Did NOM, with its campaign against gay marriage in New England, seek to hide donations? A complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate notes that a March solicitation for donations to NOM states, “And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors (sic).”

That NOM donation request announced its need to fund a new “hard-hitting radio ad” to air in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey that was developed by the public affairs group that managed the Prop 8 campaign.

The ad is titled “Consequences,” is aimed at the “potential marriage activists who listen to talk radio” and emphasizes that “legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids.”

“As the ad says — if our politicians adopt same-sex marriage, our rights won’t matter much — not parents, not people of faith, not any of us who will experience the consequences of redefining marriage. If we don’t step up now, we’ll all have to accept gay marriage — ‘whether we like it or not.’”

Ahh, Brian Brown and NOM, “going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane.”