The Looming Question, "Is Marriage Equality Still Inevitable?"

The question of whether or not marriage equality is inevitable has been raging on the internet from both sides of the issue in light of recent setbacks in Maine and New York. It's a natural question to raise, especially if you've been fighting the good fight, making historical advancements and suddenly face what appears to be a gargantuan brick wall.

I myself have sat back and read what people are saying, but with the topic ongoing, I figured I would jump in. Or at least thread together the conversation.

In 2009 alone, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine passed marriage equality either in the court or in legislation. Connecticut beat them all in 2008. And D.C. is hot on their trails to pass marriage equality before the end of the year. But then Maine, one of the most secular states in the Union, overturned the marriage law, and the New York Senate cowered in fear of losing their jobs and went back on their word and voted our civil rights down.

Two days after the New York Senate betrayal, pollster Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight asked, "Is there a backlash against marriage equality?" Shortly before Maine's vote, Silver predicted that marriage equality would prevail in the state, so he went back to the drawing board to find out what actually is going on. His conclusion: no backlash.

Silver points out that Maine's Question 1 in particular was the first ballot initiative on marriage equality that did not affect the state's constitution - it was simply a veto. This is more popular with voters than an actual amendment to the constitution because it feels less permanent, perhaps. Same goes for a federal amendment. Not very popular, Silver states.

Comparing numbers, Silver says though a majority oppose banning marriage equality through the federal constitution, they still oppose marriage equality itself.

"What that means is that there's a 'swing vote' of about 10 percent of the electorate that is not yet ready to allow gay marriage, but is also not willing to ban it (at least not Constitutionally)," Silver says. "This is enough to tip the national balance on the question of gay marriage. And it may have tipped the balance in Maine."

He concludes, "...I don't think there is any evidence of a national backlash against gay marriage. It should be borne in mind that gay marriage is still opposed by a small majority or large plurality of Americans. But there's not really any evidence that the numbers are getting worse; instead, they appear to be v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y getting better."

So if there is not backlash per se, does that mean marriage equality is inevitable? Stagnant? Or is the popular belief that the future generation of voters will bring the victory for civil rights for LGBT citizens actually true?

Ben Smith at Politico reports that it most likely is. He refers to May's Gallup Poll which found that 18 to 29 year olds favor same-sex marriage by a margin of 59% to 37%, while people 65 and over oppose it by an even wider margin.

Yet he reports that conservatives believe the same-sex marriage issue could follow down the same path as abortion, where they claim the pro-life stance has chipped away at reproductive rights. And as the younger generation gets older and start having families, their views on marriage equality could change, conservatives claim.

“The question is how important will that issue be to them, and how engaged will they be to make sure the laws of their states and the nation change,” Republican pollster Kellyann Conway told Ben.

Democratic pollster Diane Feldman countered, "There’s a lot of things that go along with support for same-sex marriage – attitudes such as awareness that people are born gay." Young voters’ "underlying attitudes about gay people and gay rights are very different” from older voters.

Here's the golden nugget that Ben shares.

“It’s only a matter of time,” said a prominent Republican pollster, who declined to be named for stating a view that runs contrary to those of many of his clients. “Once the dam bursts, which is going to happen, it’s a process that won’t be stopped.”

And that sense of a building flood is part of the reason that the recent setbacks have prompted no serious evaluation of the goals of the gay rights movement, and no discussion of backing off a totemic issue – though one which some gay leaders, like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), have long argued should be postponed for more practical fights. If anything, the energy and money of the gay rights movement are directed toward more energetic, more confrontational tactics; civil disobedience, Mixner suggested, will become more common in 2010.

“The fact of the matter is that in little more than a year we have multiplied the number of state with freedom to marry by six,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder the group Freedom to Marry, referring to the District of Columbia and five other states. “That’s a good year,” he said.

But don't think that hasn't swayed the opposition.

Our friend Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage had a few things to say in response to Ben's story.

"Ben graciously included a quote from me saying gay marriage is not inevitable, but mentioned none of the reasons I gave him, much less the ones I thought up in the car after the cell phone died," she complains. But luckily for her, she had time to think up more reasons why she believes marriage rights for LGBT citizens is not inevitable.

I won't vouch for her logic, but here are her 8 reasons in italics:

1. Nothing is inevitable.
2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.
3. The argument from despair is bait and switch. (She claims we tout that marriage equality is inevitable because we're losing.)
4. Progressives are often wrong about the future.
   
5. Demography could be destiny. (Here's a laugh. She urges traditionalists to have more children. The implication here is that they'll be raised with anti-LGBT views and therefore hinder future LGBT advancement. Does she not realize that having more children also increases the LGBT population - even better, in traditionalists households?)
6. Change is inevitable. (The young folks will become old folks and then the younger folks won't think pro-marriage equality is "cool" because that's what the old folks think. Huh? Also, she says we may give up. Wishful thinking, Mags.)
   
7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong. (No kidding. But they know bullshit when they see it, too.)
   
8. New York's highest court was right. (She refers to Hernandez v. Robles and quotes the ruling in which the judges refuse to guess what future generations will believe.)

Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend wrote in response, "Is she serious? Is this any kind of reality-based plan -- to encourage Duggar-like spermination to save marriage? Ha! Unfortunately, while Maggie may think homos are made, not born, all this over-procreating is only going to do is increase the odds that every fundie family will raise a fag- or dyke-in-waiting, eventually coming out and giving these moms and pops the need for a fainting couch on National Coming Out Day."

Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, who is always on top of these wingnuts, issued a point-by-point response. A highlight:

It's also pretty interesting that Maggie would even turn to this little snippet from Hernandez, considering her cited chunk contains this line:

We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives.

That's right: Decided through the elected representatives, not through "the people" via a direct referendum. Even this court, as part of a really bad ruling, recognized that if this nation is going to have the chance to weigh in on a matter like this, then this voice is to come through the representatives that Americans send to office. The human rights decision is not to come via the extremely hurtful campaigns that Maggie forcefully backed in both CA and ME!

So my thoughts.

First, on Mags. If this is the best that Maggie can come up with, then I rest comfortably in my belief that marriage equality isn't only inevitable but assured. I even hesitated to post her illogical rambling in fear of lowering my blog's intellectual equity, but one must deal with one's opposition, no matter how stupid they are.

Second, I don't believe we're facing a marriage equality backlash but a setback. The road to equality is never going to be "downhill from here." Our victories this past year are stunning and extremely encouraging, but the trek ahead will always be uphill. We will always face opposition. We will always face misinformation and voters who have been lied to. We will always face politicians thinking of their jobs and their asses first instead of their moral duty to protect the civil rights of their constituents. That's how it's always going to be. Victory will come at the apex of our journey, and think of the stunning view we will have from up there!

Third, I do in fact truly believe that full marriage equality nationwide on a state and federal level is inevitable. Humanity's movement toward human rights has never moved backwards collectively. We definitely have had some major hiccups. Even now in Uganda, where they are attempting to pass a bill targeting gays (at one point, punishment for being gay would have been execution), some believe that not all human rights are right. But these are blips in the larger scale of human history.

Marriage equality exists today, right now, in a handful of states, and if history is any indicator, it will spread. Naturally, we want it to happen today. Who doesn't? But in a generation of instant gratification, fostered by On Demand entertainment and immediate information provided through the internet and mobile phones, the long trek toward full equality seems unbearable, and the amount of work to reach the finish line near unconscionable.

It seems wrong. It almost appears we have to wait. But it's not about waiting. It's about the work. The hard work is the engine that creates the inevitable trajectory. Something is only inevitable when the work is being done to make it happen. Otherwise the inevitable becomes only a "possibility." And that implies doubt.

Don't let our recent setbacks get you down. Use them as a rallying cry. Let them motivate you. Let them be a reminder of the work that needs to be done. Don't let the inevitable become only a possibility.

AUDIO: National Organization for Marriage Expands Legal Challenge Against Maine

Now they believe they should be exempt from having to disclose their financial sources in candidate races, not just initiative campaigns. Who do these people think they are?



For full text of this report, click here.

In my opinion, they're just digging themselves into a bigger hole. Recently, I reported that they're facing a possible IRS probe. They have also subpoenaed Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, who has been responsible for getting Maine and California to investigate the organization, in an effort for him to hand over all documents he has against them in their counter lawsuit against these states.

It's only a matter of time, folks.

New Jersey Native Bruce Springsteen Speaks Out for Marriage Equality; Success of Marriage Bill Called Into Question

With his state's senate scheduled to vote on the New Jersey marriage equality bill Thursday, one of the most well-known names to come out of the Garden State, Bruce Springsteen, has spoken up in favor of civil rights for LGBT citizens.

On his website, "The Boss" wrote:

Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I've been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton. I've long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that, "The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is -- a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law." I couldn't agree more with that statement and urge those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now.

The New Jersey marriage equality bill is on thin ice. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Two days before the New Jersey Senate was scheduled to consider a bill to allow same-sex marriage, some area legislators were reticent yesterday to reveal how they would vote.

Dana Redd (D., Camden), who will resign her Senate seat next month to become mayor of Camden, has decided but isn't telling, she said at a Camden City Council meeting last night.

James Beach (D., Camden) hadn't made up his mind, an aide said. And Stephen Sweeney and Fred Madden (both D., Gloucester) did not respond to repeated calls seeking their positions on the issue.

The bill, known officially as the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act, squeaked through the Judiciary Committee in a 7-6 vote Monday after nine hours of testimony and debate. The Senate will consider it tomorrow.

"It's an uphill fight, but there is a chance for victory," said sponsor Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen).

-------

No matter what the outcome, tomorrow's vote on the proposal will have national implications, Dworkin said.

"Each side will take what it can from victory or defeat and mobilize based on it," he said. "It just pushes everyone to the next battleground."

We already know that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been swamping the state with radio ads and more, urging for the senate to vote against the bill and encouraging anti-LGBT citizens to call for a public referendum. Garden State Equality has had their own ads airing.

On Tuesday, NOM issued a statement (see it on their website if you wish), telling the senate not to "mess with marriage" and claiming that they have spent $600,000 in the Garden State fighting LGBT rights.

Maggie Gallagher says, "New Jersey voters and politicians have given a great deal to Garden State Equality in the last few years, including full civil unions. Steven Goldstein has boasted that New Jersey is one of the best states for gay rights in the country, thanks to his organization's efforts. Why are they insisting on the right to redefine marriage, whether or not the people of New Jersey like it?"

ACTION: Go to Garden State Equality to find out how you can get involved!

National Organization for Marriage Faces IRS Probe

Press release from Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate:

WASHINGTON, DC – Right on the heels of last week’s vote on gay marriage in the New York State Senate, Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage could well be facing its 3^rd investigation into its 2 year old operation.

In an IRS letter recently received by Ben Katzenberg on behalf of Californians Against Hate (letter below or CLICK HERE), Sunita Lough, Director, EO Examinations said, “Thank you for the information you submitted regarding the National Organization for Marriage PAC New York. The Internal Revenue Service has an ongoing examination program to ensure that exempt organizations comply with the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code…. Internal Revenue Code section 6103 protects the privacy of tax returns and tax return information of all taxpayers. Therefore, we cannot disclose the status of any investigation.”

NOM is already the subject of investigations in California and Maine. Both complaints were filed by Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate. The California investigation (Case #08/735) is in its 2^nd year. That investigation covers the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) and NOM for not reporting in-kind expenditures on behalf of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

The Maine investigation began when that state’s Ethics Commission voted on October 1, 2009 to investigate NOM for not filing as a PAC in the recent election there to ban same-sex marriage. NOM should have filed as a PAC when it raised $5,000. It raised well over $1.8 million, and still refused to file as required under Maine elevation law.

“In Maine they refused to release the names of their donors, even after Federal Judge D. Brock Hornby and Maine State Attorney General Janet Mills ordered them to,” said Karger. This type of blatant disregard for the law is inconceivable. NOM is not above the law.”

“Soon Maggie Gallagher and her sidekick, Brian Brown (NOM executive director) are going to get caught.”

“NOM has spent nearly $20 million around the country in the past 2 years in at least 11 states, but apparently does not believe in following either state or federal laws.”

“Additionally, no one has yet to see any federal reporting by NOM of its National Organization for Marriage Educational Fund. This is their 501(c)3 charitable organization. There is no telling how many more millions of dollars they have raised and spent through this entity. It was formed in 2008, and their filings should have been available to the public well before now. We have requested this information from the IRS and have not received it as of today.”

“NOM’s 501(c)4 finally released its required 990 tax filings for 2007 and 2008 over one year late, and only after repeated requests were filed with the IRS by our organization and several other media outlets.”

“The Congress of the Untied States should launch an official investigation of the National Organization for Marriage at once,” concluded Karger.

NOM is believed to be a front group for the Mormon Church. See our web site www.Mormongate.com for details.

Karger has been subpoenaed by the Yes on 8 campaign and NOM in an effort to get him to surrender all his documentation against them so they can argue their case in the lawsuit brought by the Proposition 8 campaign against California's election officials.

Karger has had to get legal representation but it will cost a lot of money, money he does not have. For the first time ever, he's asking for support and has launched FiveforFred.com. $5 per person, the cost of a latte (plus tip) could help him cover his lawyer's fees.

Brian Brown Says D.C. Residents Have 'God-Given' Right to Vote on Marriage Equality

I DID say I wanted to see the look on the faces of Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) when they heard that the D.C. Council passed marriage equality on the first of two scheduled votes. But I DIDN'T say I wanted to hear from them.

Of course, that didn't stop them from yakkin'. Brian Brown issued this response to the vote:

This battle is not over. DC politicians are blocking the right of people to vote on marriage. Voters in 31 other states have already exercised their right to vote on this issue. It is ironic that some politicians actively campaign demanding DC voting rights and yet they are conspiring to deny those same citizens the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will not give up on D.C. The people of D.C. have the right to vote for marriage; we will fight for their rights and we will win. NOM will be proud to fight alongside Bishop Harry Jackson to make sure politicians hear the people's voice loud and clear: don't mess with marriage. We will fight in Congress. We will fight through the courts to get this to the people of D.C. who have a God-given right to vote for marriage and Charter-given right to overturn the council's decision. We are confident marriage will win in the end in D.C. as it has in Maine and 30 other states.

Yes, it's Americans God-given right (because the Bible says so, right?) to vote away minority rights, just like they did on interracial marriage.

Wait.

No they didn't. Because if they did, interracial would still be illegal today! When the Supreme Court ruled on Loving vs. Virginia, a large majority of Americans thought it was immoral.

(We need to do a better job of teaching history - we have a lot of people today who don't realize that they're committing the damning error of repeating it.)

Just because 31 states have voted on this doesn't make it right. Herd mentality doesn't indicate intelligence.

NOM and Harry Bishop Jackson have appealed the D.C. Board of Elections ruling that no initiative will take place because it would violate the District's Human Rights Act.

Our Families Count reports that D.C. has the largest percentage of same-sex couples in the country with 1.5%, doubling any other state. This is roughly equivalent to 3,600 couples. Opposition would face a stiff challenge at the ballot box, however unconstitutional the vote may be.

Bring it on.

New Jersey Heats Up As Over 250 Rally at the Capitol Monday to Push For Marriage Equality Bill Vote

Yesterday, I reported from the news I received on the ground that hundreds of marriage equality supporters rallied at Statehouse in New Jersey's capital of Trenton.

The rally, organized by the state's largest LGBT advocacy group Garden State Equality, had over 250 people reports the NJ Politiker.

Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality took a megaphone and proclaimed to the crowd, "If the Democrats don't enact marriage equality now, after years of telling us to wait, it will cause a huge schism between the state Democratic party and its entire progressive base," he added. "And it could change the political landscape of New Jersey permanently."

This is a great video from Jay Lassiter covering yesterday's rally.



The intent of the rally was to encourage state Democrats to pass marriage equality legislation so that pro-LGBT Gov. Jon Corzine can sign the bill before he leaves office in January. Governor-elect Chris Christie is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage and has promised to veto the bill if it comes to him. His election has discouraged lawmakers from passing it as well as the passing of Question 1 in Maine. However, a recent poll showed a small majority of New Jersey resident support marriage rights for their LGBT fellow citizens.

However, both Sen. Paul Sarlo who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee and current Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney, who was just elected Senate President by his peers Monday, both oppose taking up the marriage bill at this time. Yet bill co-sponsor Sen. Loretta Weinberg is still hopeful.

She "insisted the gay marriage bill isn't dead," reports the Asbury Park Press. "She said discussions would continue, tamping down persistent chatter that the measure lacks support to pass. Legislative leaders have said they won't post the bill for a vote unless it has at least 21 votes in the Senate and 41 in the Assembly."

The New York Times reported about Monday:

But Senate Democrats met to discuss the measure on Monday and — despite intense lobbying from a coalition of gay-rights advocates and other groups — did not schedule it for a vote, because they appeared unable to muster the 21 votes needed to pass it. A few Republicans have said they may support the bill, but several of the 23 Democrats have expressed reservations about it. Senator Loretta Weinberg, a sponsor of the bill, who spent the fall campaigning as Mr. Corzine’s running mate, said that despite her colleagues’ post-election apprehensions, she believed that lawmakers would make New Jersey the latest state to legalize gay marriage.

“This is an issue of fairness,” she said. “It’s not like we’re going to miss out on a chance to fix the economy during the lame-duck session because we’re spending a couple of hours debating this. It is a matter of civil rights.”

Though civil unions are legal in New Jersey, a state-commissioned study showed that the institution is not adequate and that those in unions are not treated equally to married couples. It was this report that sparked the marriage bill creation.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has already been airing radio ads against the legislation but have just released a new one Monday with $500,000 spent to blast the state with it, along with direct mailers, telephone calling and online advertising. (H/T Good As You)



Jeremy at Good As You says it best, "So disgustingly misleading. We're not talking about days of debate and scores of resources. In a state where the high court has already demanded equality, and where the legislatively-implemented civil unions have failed to live up to that promise, the debate over whether or not to bump up the C.U. system to full equality should be a no-brainer."

You would think.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church leadership organized their Garden State priests to simultaneously give the same homily against marriage equality. No doubt the $2 million they have set aside to fight LGBT citizens' right to marriage will be used in New Jersey.

Garden State Equality has fought back with sharp ads of their own which caused a stir the day after Question 1 passed in Maine.

ACTION: Get involved. Go to Garden State Equality to find out how.

VIDEO: Evan Wolfson Vs. Maggie Gallagher on ABC News Nightline

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage appeared Monday on ABC's Nightline Twittercast and duked it out in this great debate over marriage equality.

ABC News: Nightline Twittercast

For an excellent blow-by-blow, check out Jeremy Hooper at Good As You.

VIDEO: Maggie G. Just Doesn't Know When To Shut Up

Earlier, I posted Maggie's diatribe on her victory in Maine. Can you believe that she has even more to say?

VIDEO: NOM's Maggie Gallagher Rubs In Our Defeat In Maine, But Sadly, She's Correct

I'd rather suffer severe rope burn than listen to Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, but sometimes the fight for equal rights demands we listen to our opposition to better counter them.

Only if I had a spoonful of sugar handy . . .



The hardest part about what Maggie says is that a chunk of it is true. We had a big leading advantage in Maine and we lost it.

So what are we doing wrong?

As I have said before, Equality Maine has done amazing work in the state, building a strong grassroots infrastructure while doing the everyday task of educating residents on LGBT issues.

On top of that, the NO on 1 campaign did learn from the defeat in California and applied most but not all the lessons learned expediently.

We still lost. And hearing Maggie point out these facts is equivalent to sticking ice picks in my ears.

It's a sad fact we need to face: our messaging is not working.

Terry Leftgoff, who formerly served as the highest ranking openly gay officer of the California Democratic Party and oversaw numerous campaign efforts, wrote in an email (shared with permission by Rex Wockner) about our messaging from the NO on 1 campaign:

"I believe it is clear: we must radically reinvent our messaging, tactics and strategy...

"Most importantly, there was no effective response to predictable lies about children and schools, the identical lies made a year earlier during Prop 8.

"The response both times was to validate the implied homophobia by denying/agreeing that we don't teach about marriage or gays in school: 'Oh no, we should never talk about those gays because they're bad.' This validates and surrenders an emotionally charged subtext with an specious intellectual response; taken in isolation, it is a loser. Rather we need to develop strong proactive and affirmative messages that completely redirect the debate and reach higher to universal American principles and human respect. And we need to hit early and hit hard."

I have to agree with what Terry says and I have been saying so for some time. Again, this is not a criticism of the amazing, hardworking people behind the NO on 1 campaign, but an evaluation of us as a whole, the LGBT population and allies, as we struggle to define the message that we know innately - that we deserve equal rights - and translate it to the masses so that they will be motivated to vote with us.

It's no easy task. Otherwise, we wouldn't have lost 31 states. But where do we begin?

"There are a number of ways to accomplish this," Terry believes. "One way is to effectively portray the real effect denigration and rejection has on us and our children. It is about gut empathy. Many voters can get that and it is completely missing from our arsenal."

Just as the Yes on 1 campaign showed children acting sad for the cameras while at school, "suffering" from "homosexual marriage being forced upon them," we need to show our very real families really suffering from being treated unequally and forced to live with state sanctioned discrimination.

I believe New Jersey takes a big step in the right direction with their new marriage ads. This ad is so powerful, so raw, it should have been our strategy from day one.



(View the other ad)

The direction this ad takes can also be applied to countering the opposition's school argument about how LGBT students and children of LGBT families suffer at schools simply because of who they are.

We have lost in 31 states. But you can view that from a different angle. The ball is in our court in 31 states. We can now choose when to go back to the ballot. This time we won't be on the defense, forced to forge a campaign with little time. We'll be on the offense. We can now learn from our 31 defeats and turn them into victories. It takes time, diligence, sweat and tears - it will be scary, but we can do it. The power is on our side now.

We must use this power wisely.

--------

EVENT: Learn about messaging from some of our top experts. Vote For Equality is hosting, "Why Messaging Matters." Limited seating. First come first serve. Wednesday, Nov. 11 at 7pm.

I highly recommend this. It will dissect our campaign ads and the opposition's and evaluate what worked and what didn't. Arm yourself with this knowledge. It's so important moving forward a this crossroad in our movement.

NOM's Maggie Gallagher Shows Up at D.C. Marriage Equality Rally

Uhm, Maggie, did you really think they wouldn't notice that you were there, gloating all the while? At least when we have a rally, we don't shut people out like you do. You're always welcome. But don't say I didn't warn you . . .



Speaking of Maggie - she recently appeared in a public debate facing off with Marriage Equality New York's Board President, Cathy Marino-Thomas at Hofstra University recently. In the debate, she had the gall to say to Cathy:

[Your lesbian relationship] may be better, but it’s not a marriage. It may be better than a marriage. It’s probably better than my marriage, to hear you talk about it. I wouldn’t talk about my marriage in such glowing terms.

Speaking of Maggie's marriage - she actually married outside her Christian religion to a Hindu. I have no problem with that. Actually, I think it's rather cool and shows she may be a little more open-minded than I thought (or she's just a hypocritical oxymoron). But I wonder what the fundamentalists who donate tons of money to her National Organization for Marriage would think of that.

(H/T Mike Tidmus)

Oh, and one other thing. Do you think Maggie while fire Ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean now that the former beauty queen has a sex tape floating around?

VIDEO: NOM's Brian Brown Faces D.C. Councilman and Marriage Equality Bill Sponsor David Catania

At yesterday's public hearing on D.C.'s marriage equality bill, Councilman and lead sponsor of the bill David Catania faced down the National Organization for Marriage Executive Director Brian Brown.


(video via NGBlog)

Federal Judge Rules Against National Organization for Marriage in Maine

A federal judge has ruled against the anti-marriage equality the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) who requested special rights by pushing the courts to suspend Maine's campaign donor reporting requirements for ballot initiatives.

However, this won't have any immediate impact on Tuesday's elections or the fact that NOM has bankrolled 60% of the Yes on 1 campaign thus far.

Unfortunately, this ruling will not affect American Principles in Action (APIA) who is attempting to air two disgusting and perverted ads in Maine, and they are refusing to disclose who funded the ads.

Maine's ethics commission voted October 1 to investigate NOM after Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint that they were not reporting donor names.

“In over 30 years in politics, I have never seen such a blatant disregard for the law as Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are doing in Maine,” said Karger. “They are up to their old tricks. They did the same thing in California when their apparent creator, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) became the target of an investigation by that state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The FPPC began an unprecedented investigation of the Salt Lake City based Church (Case #08-735), and the National Organization for Marriage nearly one year ago. NOM sued every top election official in California in order to keep the contributors to last year’s Proposition 8 secret as well.”

The ethics commission's investigation isn't expected to be complete until November 19.

The lawsuit, meanwhile, will carry on. Jim Bopp, lawyer for NOM, says Maine's reporting requirements violate the Constitution's First Amendment.

Not a good day for Yes on 1. They're so desperate, they've unleashed the nutjobs on Maine's innocent citizens.

Top Image: created with much wit by Mike Tidmus
Right Image: from Californians Against Hate

Perverted NOM Suing Maine in an Effort to Run Disgusting, Homophobic Ads

I've already reported on the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) suing Maine because they don't want to follow the state's election laws while fighting the advancement of marriage equality.

But part of the lawsuit claims they can't run two ads they've produced because they are "chilled from doing so, however, by the prospect of having to register as a BQC and meet the reporting and other requirements of sections 1056-B and 1059.”

Mike Tidmus was able to get his hands on the outrageous, disgusting scripts for the immensely offensive ads.

The first one is called Bigot.

Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?

Mother: What?

Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.

Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly–but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn’t make me a bigot.

Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?

Mother: Did you learn that at school too?

Girl nods

VO: Think that gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

If you think it couldn't get worse, it does. Don't underestimate the perverted minds of NOM.

Here's the other ad The New Curriculum.

School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter–as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.): No, we’re very proud of the new curriculum. It’s all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.

Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we’re looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy’s hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, “Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb”

Reporter (VO) : Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?

School Admin (VO): Sure, we’ve had a few complaints, but there’s not much parents can do. It’s the law, after all.

VO: Think gay marriage won’t affect your family? Think again.

Vote Yes Graphic

I don't even know where to start on these.

The perverts at NOM are obsessed with tying us to pedophiles, stirring up the fears of the older generation who were taught since childhood that gays were nothing more than child predators.

But not just the older generation. NOM's other target is parents who don't have the time to educate themselves on the issue and upon viewing the ad, would fear for their child's safety. Who wouldn't, viewing that garbage?

No wonder NOM keeps suing states that they're working in to avoid obeying their laws. I'm just wondering when they'll finally be classified as a bona fide hate group.

This makes their Gathering Storm ad seem like a love letter.

Maine is the new battleground. Get involved! Go to NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality!

Let's Play 'Spot Yes on 1's Lie!'

Can anyone spot the lie below?



If the NO on 1/Protect Marriage Equality campaign knew $5 million was coming from HRC, WE'D KNOW IT!

Maybe they got their numbers wrong. Maybe it was a typo. Maybe they meant to tell the quasi-truth and write $.5 million, but that would still be more than how much HRC really has donated to NO on 1. (HRC has donated roughly $140,000 plus another $80,000 in goods, services and staff time. See NO on 1's contributions report and an article. Thanks HRC!)

Or not.

The hypocrisy is staggering, considering that 60% of the Yes on 1 campaign has been bankrolled by none other than the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), who have said they want to be the anti-marriage equality answer to HRC.

Guess they overshot that goal a bit, you think?

Washington D.C. Marriage Equality Hearing Expects 269 People to Testify

Due to D.C. Councilman David Catania submitting a marriage equality bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the nation's capital, several hearings on marriage equality will be held in Washington D.C. in the coming weeks, two to be held this Monday, October 26.

First on Monday, starting at 10am, marriage equality opponents led by Maryland's Bishop Harry Jackson and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), will speak at the D.C.'s Board of Elections & Ethics hearing, urging them to grant their request for a Prop 8 style ballot initiative so that D.C. residents can vote on whether or not to allow same-sex marriage to be performed. (Get info to attend!)

When the City Council voted in May to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed outside its borders, Bishop Jackson failed to get an initiative off the ground to stop them, with the same Elections board turning him down. This time, he wants to avoid the marriages being performed in the District at all.

Jackson has faced harsh criticism for meddling in the District's affairs and not even being a resident.

At 3:30pm the City Council will begin one of two separate public hearings on the marriage equality bill itself (not to consider an initiative). Due to over 269 witnesses on both sides expected to testify, and with it being the largest public hearing since City Council member Phil Mendelson can remember, the board has decided to split the hearing in two, the second being on Monday, November 2.

This Monday's hearing will have the first 100 testimonies.

The DCist reports that each speaker will only get 3 minutes each. As for this Monday, "Bob Summersgill and Rick Rosendall, two local gay rights activists, open up the proceedings. Bob King, the Ward 5 ANC commissioner who has been part of the push for a referendum goes 7th, followed by Kathryn Pearson-West, a resident who has strongly sided with the pro-referendum forces in repeated postings to local online newsletters. Our favorite, Bishop Harry Jackson, will speak 14th, while influential gay Ward 8 activist Phil Pannell goes in the #45 slot. As for organizational showing, the Human Rights Campaign is flexing some muscle with six of the 100 testimonies."

The Council’s Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary will hold the hearing in the City Council chambers on the fifth floor of the John Wilson City Hall Building at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Co-Chairs of D.C. for Marriage Michael Crawford and Hilary Treat wrote to members and residents, "Anti-equality activists led by National Organization for Marriage are pressuring members of the City Council to support a Prop 8 style ballot fight to ban marriage for same-sex couples. That makes telling our stories all the more important. By sharing our stories, we'll be making the most powerful case for marriage equality yet."

If you plan to attend and support marriage equality, show your support by wearing red.

NOM Attempts to Buy Maine Votes With $1.1M While NO on 1 Crosses $4M Threshold!

UPDATE 3:15pm PST: NOM has bankrolled 60% of Yes on 1's campaign, and they're in court Monday trying to get out of disclosing where the money came from.

These people are either brilliant or just plain stupid. I believe the latter. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has given the Yes on 1 campaign $1.1 million in the last twenty days despite the fact they are under investigation by the state of Maine for their fundraising tactics.

Or, in other words, they freaked out when they discovered the NO on 1 campaign raised $1.4 million on Act Blue and since they knew they couldn't get that kind of support from individual donors, they threw money at the problem. Overall, the Yes on 1 campaign has raised $1.4 million for this quarter. (Read my prior post on the Catholic Church's damaging contribution.)

But here's the good news. The Yes on 1 are failures without NOM and the Catholic Church. The NO on 1 campaign has had thousands of supporters.

The NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign has announced that it has passed the $4 million threshold.

With more than one-third of money raised coming in the last three weeks of the campaign, the NO on 1 campaign today announced that it has broken the $4 million threshold in its effort to preserve marriage equality and defeat Question 1.

Campaign Manager Jesse Connolly, in meeting today's state filing deadline, noted that more than 20,000 people have now contributed to NO on 1, with more than 40% donating in the last 20 days. Connolly noted that while the NO on 1 campaign reported 22,823 donations since the campaign began, Question 1 has been fueled by just 710 donations.

"We continue to be overwhelmed by the level of support and energy we see both in the field and through fundraising," said Connolly. "Mainers have dug deep, whether that's manning extra nights at our phone banks or writing another check. We're a small state and we know we need help to properly fund this effort and that's why we're so grateful for the ongoing contributions of equality supporters throughout the country."

At the same time, Connolly noted that the Question 1 campaign filing was fueled almost entirely by three huge donations by the New Jersey based National Organization for Marriage (NOM). In fact, $1.1M of the $1.4M raised in this period came from NOM. And while the Question 1 campaign reported 310 contributors, the NO on 1 campaign had over 4722 contributors this period.

"These two filings starkly illustrate the difference between the two campaigns," said Connolly. "The NO on 1 campaign has been fueled largely by individuals, people in Maine and across the country who believe deeply in equality. By contrast, the Question 1 campaign would scarcely exist without the deep pockets of the New Jersey-based NOM which continues to hide its donor base from voters and the public. We simply don't believe NOM can buy the votes this late in the game."

The NO on 1 campaign released its contributions and expenditures in accordance with Maine campaign finance laws today and offered these highlights from the latest reporting period from October 1-20, 2009:

-- $1,369,370 was raised in the reporting period, from October 1-20, giving a year-to-date (YTD) total of $4,060,053.
-- 8,930 donors pitched in during this last period, bringing the total number of donors to NO on 1 to 20,372.
-- Of that donor base, 7,840 were Mainers, with 2082 Maine residents contributing in the last 20 days.
-- Over $500,000 of the total $1.3M raised during this period came from Maine donors.
-- 16 individual donors, including one organization, gave $10,000 or more during this reporting period, fueling $617,000 of the total raised. Of that total, $352,000 or 57% came from donors who live in Maine.
-- In the last 20 days, the average online donation was $58. The off-line or direct donation average through fund raising events and individual donations was $150.
-- Nearly $142,000 of in-kind donations were made by 49 individuals and organizations supporting marriage equality.

Though none of us should be surprised by the cowardly attempts of NOM and Yes on 1 to keep up with us on donations so they can tout that they have as much support (because obviously they don't), it's still OK for us to be angry.

Now use that anger and GET INVOLVED!

ACTION: Here are the different ways you can get involved.

1. If you live far from Maine but are eager to make a difference, you can phone bank from home. Sign up at Call for Equality.
2. If you do live near Maine, go to Drive for Equality, where you can look for carpools in your area headed up to the Pine Tree State so you can volunteer and help Get Out the Vote!
3. If you actually live in Maine, VOTE EARLY! Not only will the NO on 1 campaign see a record of your vote, it will free you up on election day to help get supporters to the polls.
4. DONATE! You can do this no matter where you live.

Maine News Roundup: NOM Tries to Squirm Out of Investigation; Catholic Church Contributes Over Half a Million and More

NOM Sues Another State to Get Out of Another Investigation

As I reported yesterday, the uber anti-marriage equality National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is yet again trying to squirm out of another investigation by pitching a tantrum aka filing a lawsuit.

NOM filed a lawsuit against state officials in California who decided, thanks to the efforts of Frank Karger of Californians Against Hate, to investigate them for their involvement in the passage of Prop 8.

Karger also led the charge against NOM for their involvement in Maine. Danielle Truszkovsky of the South Florida Blade has written an amazing piece describing the Maine Ethics Commission hearing that led to the investigation.

Now Kevin Miller of the Bangor Daily News in Maine has written a follow-up on yesterday's breaking news about Washington DC-based NOM's lawsuit against Maine and how they don't like the way things are ran there.

Now, the organization has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor alleging that Maine’s financial reporting requirements are unconstitutional.


The lawsuit seeks a court injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing a law that NOM officials claim is being used to harass and intimidate opponents of gay marriage.


“The reporting requirements become onerous and burdensome, especially when you are working in several states, and are an infringement of free speech,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director.


-------


Brown argued in an interview Thursday that the reporting requirements — which include registering as a ballot question committee, appointing a treasurer and keeping detailed records for four years — are an undue burden. He also described Maine’s law as legally unclear and “patently unconstitutional” because it prohibited or discouraged free speech in the form of advocacy on one side of an issue.


He also accused the Ethics Commission members and Karger of waging a politically motivated “witch hunt,” despite the fact that the vote to order an investigation was bipartisan.


“What we are basically doing is filing a lawsuit to make clear our First Amendment rights to free speech,” Brown said. He also said that some donors to NOM during the California campaign later were harassed and threatened.

Mike Tidmus put it best on his blog, "It appears Brown will tolerate no sunshine in the Pine Tree State if telling the truth — the whole truth — and complying with the law makes his and cohort Maggie Gallagher’s lives more difficult … and expensive."

I have to agree. It's not very bright of Brian Brown to come charging into stay-out-of-our-business Maine and telling them that how they do things is wrong. But then again, Brown isn't known for being all that brilliant.

The Catholic Church of Maine Donates Over Half a Million to Yes on 1

The AP reports:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has given another $152,600 to the group that's trying to overturn Maine's gay-marriage law.


A spokeswoman said the new contributions were transferred from a "rainy day" fund to the Stand for Marriage Maine political action committee.


That brings total Roman Catholic contributions to more than $550,000. That includes more than $180,000 from the Diocese of Portland, $141,300 from individual parishioners in Maine and $214,000 from other dioceses and bishops across the U.S.

This is mind-boggling. They have recently closed three parishes in Maine due to lack of funds (resulting in low attendance), but instead of using their "rainy day" fund to save them, they instead use it to strip rights away of fellow citizens because they don't like how they live their private lives.

What the f*** is a rainy day fund for if it's not to save your own churches?

Jesus taught that the two greatest commandments were, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31)

The Catholic Church is violating the second greatest commandment and forgetting about feeding the poor. And don't get me started on speculating about where the money may be coming from.

I will end by reminding the church about this - "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10-12)

The Lack of Logic in Yes on 1's Arguments

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has written a great post about the lack of any sense found in Yes on 1's arguments against marriage equality.

He's posted about the talking points that the campaign sent out and has paraphrased them as such.

1. The new law won't make gay marriage equal to straight marriage. Instead, it will create a new kind of marriage in which gay people and straight people are equal.
2. Although we may not have proven any connection between gay marriage and public education, our opponents haven't disproven the connection, and it's their fault that the subject came up.
3. If gay marriage is upheld, then marriage will exist solely to make people happy.


These arguments run from the literally incoherent (#1) to the sublimely unpersuasive (#3), with #2 somewhere in between. Yet, they are, apparently, the best arguments that the Yes on 1 folks can muster -- the ones they're using to close out their campaign.

He goes on to remind us that Maine is one of the least religious states, so Yes on 1 has had to hammer home the lie about same-sex marriage being taught in schools. He says this argument has been discredited. And it has. But unfortunately, the harm has already been done.

NO on 1/Protect Marriage Equality can still lead Maine through a historic win for marriage equality. GET INVOLVED!

ACTION: Here are the different ways you can get involved.

1. If you live far from Maine but are eager to make a difference, you can phone bank from home. Sign up at Call for Equality.
2. If you do live near Maine, go to Drive for Equality, where you can look for carpools in your area headed up to the Pine Tree State so you can volunteer and help Get Out the Vote!
3. If you actually live in Maine, VOTE EARLY! Not only will the NO on 1 campaign see a record of your vote, it will free you up on election day to help get supporters to the polls.
4. DONATE! You can do this no matter where you live.

BREAKING: National Organization for Marriage Challenges Maine's Order to Investigate Fundraising Tactics

UPDATE: Thanks to Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, I have obtained copies of NOM's filings. Embedded at bottom. Read Karger's press release.

Earlier this month, Maine's Ethics Commission ruled in favor of investigating the National Organization for Marriage's fundraising efforts to repeal the state's new marriage equality law.

Maine's Bangor Daily News reports that they have filed a federal challenge.

The biggest contributor to the group trying to overturn Maine's gay marriage law is suing the state over its campaign reporting requirements.


The state ethics commission voted Oct. 1 to take a closer look at contributions by the National Organization for Marriage after it was accused of circumventing Maine law by not reporting the names of many donors. The group responded with a constitutional challenge filed Wednesday in federal court in Bangor.

Wow. An organization from outside of Maine is challenging Maine's ethics practices in federal court because they don't like how they do things there.

Reminds me of the Prop 8 proponents throwing a hissy fit over having to hand over internal campaign documents.

These type of tantrums just seem to underline suspicions that they have something to hide.

I will post filing once I get my hands on it.

RELATED STORY: National Organization for Marriage has sent an email to their supporters calling the NPR claims of copyright infringement against the Yes on 1 campaign a sign that the anti-marriage equality ad must contain an "inconvenient truth."

NOM Complaint Against Investigation

NOM Lawsuit Against Maine Investigation

National Organization for Marriage Gives Preemptive Strike With Radio Ad in New Jersey

If all goes well, New Jersey will be on the fast track to marriage equality with a supportive legislature and current governor Jon Corzine willing to sign a bill.

Anti-LGBT forces are hoping to avert this, or in the very least, try to get the issue on the ballot. The National Organization for Marriage has decided not to waste time and has released this recycled radio ad (pretty much the same one they aired in Washington D.C.).



(h/t NG Blog)

Tips-Q is furious at NOM's use of racism in their approach to fighting marriage equality.

BREAKING: Maine Ethics Commission to Investigate Anti-LGBT Yes on 1 Campaign and National Organization for Marriage

UPDATE 4 6:40pm PST: Hear the audio recording of the hearing at Good As You.

UPDATE 3 3:27pm PST: Karen Ocamb's one-on-one interview with Fred Karger gets an inside look at what happened during the Commission's hearing.

An excerpt:

“I submitted 79 emails – and all I have is what’s in the public view to go by – I can’t talk to their donors – so I took the 79 emails I was able to collect – they sent them out from post-Prop 8 until I filed my complaint in August. I took out all the ones that had anything to do with Maine and all of these fundraising emails ask for money. 16 of the 79 were Maine-specific. Some mentioned other states but they all asked for money. Two were only about Maine and they claimed that of these two emails, they only raised combined $295 from these two emails. Because if they hit $5,000 that they raised, then they’d have to file as a PAC [political action committee] – which they hadn’t done so they would have been in violation of the law. So they kind of did it backwards saying, ‘Oh, we didn’t come close to $5,000. We only raised $295.’

In August, Brain Brown took credit – I read that quote [in his testimony]: ‘We have 500,000 supporters in our march’ – whatever. So I said, ‘OK, you have 500,000 people on your list and you only raised $295 from two emails? I mean who in his right mind would believe that? They only raised $147.50 per email from over 500,000 of their supporters.

UPDATE 2 12:08pm PST: Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, who levied the complaint against NOM and the Yes on 1 campaign, has issued an official statement on the ruling, saying "I’m extremely grateful for the courageous stand the commission took today."

UPDATE 10:40am PST: Read Yes on 1's official reaction to the ruling.

Despite a staff recommendation to the contrary, Maine's Ethics Commission voted 3-2 today to order an investigation of the fund-raising efforts of the anti-marriage equality Yes on 1 campaign and the National Organization of Marriage (NOM) which has given money to Yes on 1.

Thanks to the diligence and official complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, who has similarly gone after the LDS church's involvement in Proposition 8, an investigation into NOM's fund-raising techniques and the identities of its donors will be launched.

Unfortunately, the investigation will take several weeks and more likely be completed after the November 3 elections which will determine whether or not the state will keep its new marriage equality law.

The Commission concluded that since the investigation will not be completed in time, it is better to be thorough than hasty. A staff proposal on how to proceed will be given to the Commission for review and approval.

The Portland Press Herald reports, "In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors."

I guess that remains to be seen.

TO BE POSTED SOON: Audio of the hearing.