Comments on: Maggie’s Money to be Investigated

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:03:00 +0000

Eddie, You can contribute to help Fred here.

By: Eddie89

Eddie89 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:11:27 +0000

Anyone know if Fred Karger has a website?

I would like to donate some money to him so he can continue his excellent work!

He’s certainly making more progress for equality than ANY of the major “equality” groups, e.g. HRC, EQCA, etc.

Bravo, Fred Karger!

Bravo!!

By: Johnson

Johnson — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:32:33 +0000

NOM is feeling the Heat, thanks to Karger, and People are onto their scheme. Bravo!

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:17:18 +0000

NOM has moved their headquarters to D.C. I don't know why they haven't maybe because the move isn't complete. Or maybe updating their web site is just one more thing they haven't been very vigilant about. Who knows?

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:19:16 +0000

There is a quote inside this BTB post that refers to NOM as “…a Washington, D.C.,-based organization…” But NOM’s website lists their location as “20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, NJ 08542,” and their phone number has a 609 area code which is in New Jersey. And they also list a “Processing Center” at “P.O. Box 28925 Philadelphia, PA 19151-9900.”

In the big picture, this probably doesn’t matter, but shouldn’t such basic issues of fact be accurate? Or does this discrepancy indicate that NOM is a “front group” for another outfit that prefers to remain hidden?

By: cowboy

cowboy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:08:18 +0000

eeewe…Nasty. Just a week ago NOM subpoenaed Mr. Karger’s e-mails. Was this a desperate tactic to divert attention from something really hot?

I’m hoping some Mormon with a guilty conscience will leak some internal memo. Could it be Mr. Holland who quit the NOM board and was replaced by O. Scott Card.

Politics, especially when it involves religious groups, is not for the thin-skinned.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:58:15 +0000

Brown and Gallagher are Catholics. And some Catholic Churches have engaged their congregants similarly to the way the Mormon Church has.
To make donations directly into the coffers of anti gay organizations. That way these churches can’t be accused of politicking with their own money.

However, I thought it was against the law to engage in religious politicking that TOOK AWAY rights available to everyone.
In the case of black churches and the Civil Rights movement, these institutions engaged in EXPANDING rights for those who were traditionally disenfranchised from equal rights and protection.

How can ANY church, protected by the Constitution, legally engage in activity that takes rights away or continues traditional disenfranchisement of productive and compassionate citizens that ALSO participate in their respective religions too?
Especially when it comes to the Constitution and it’s intents and purposes, which is essentially NOT to discriminate.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:56:52 +0000

Bravo to Fred.

Meanwhile, a Catholic bishop in Canada was stopped at the border with child porn on his computer.

It’s all because the gays are getting married. Anyone got the goods on the archbishop of Portland?

By: fannie

fannie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:23:29 +0000

Given Gallagher's past behavior, I think an inquiry is reasonable. Also, not cool to mock her looks. Our side is better than that. Or, we should be.

By: Christopher™

Christopher™ — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:46:30 +0000

She already is.

Sorry! Couldn’t resist.