Box Turtle Bulletin

Not a good night for NOM

The Republicans picked up significant gains in the midterm election, gaining control of the House of Representatives, and bringing the Senate to within a few votes. This is not good news for the prospect of having issues of inequality addressed in the next two years.

However, this change in the direction of power was not a mandate for social conservatives. Indeed, it was those Republicans who made the most of their socially conservative credentials who fared least well. Christine O’Donnell lost miserably, as did Tom Tancredo, while Tea Party and Republican candidates that minimized or refused to discuss their positions on social issues attracted support.

But no indicator seems to have been more consistent this election than the extent to which a candidate was supported by the National Organization for Marriage. If you were a Senatorial or Gubernatorial candidate whom NOM supported, it seemed to be the kiss of death.

In New Hampshire, NOM has ran an anti-Lynch campaign for two years, and has ratcheted up the anti-Lynch television ads going into the election. Lynch just won his fourth consecutive election, a feat not accomplished for the past 200 years.

In California, NOM sponsored a bus tour for senate candidate Carly Fiorina, encouraging Latino voters to “vota tus valores“. Not only have the networks called this election for Barbara Boxer, Latinos found Fiorina’s valores not to be their valores by two-thirds.

NOM sued the state of New York in hopes of running anonymous ads in favor of Carl Paladino. Paladino’s homophobia sunk his campaign and he ended up pulling but 35% of the vote leaving Cuomo – a marriage support – one of the strongest winners of the night.

In Minnesota, NOM ran radio ads for Tom Emmer claiming that “Mark Dayton and Tom Horner want to impose gay marriage with no vote of the people.” Although Minnesota has not been called, Dayton is 7% ahead of Emmer with 85% of the vote counted.

This kiss of death is consistent with results of NOM’s electioneering in the District of Columbia during their primary. It would seem that using gay couples as a fear tactic seems to have peaked and dissipated.

This is not to say that NOM will not have any causes for celebration. The efforts to reject three supreme court justices in Iowa who were part of the unanimous decision to recognize gay Iowans as protected by the state Constitution, appears to have succeeded. Each appears to have only 46-47% support. Expect NOM to claim this as a clear mandate that the “people of Iowa have spoken” and that they don’t like their gay neighbors so much. NOM was not, however, successful in their effort to oust the Polk County judge who first found for marriage equality.

And NOM’s very own Andy Pugno – the attorney for the Prop 8 campaign – is running for state assembly in California’s 5th Assembly district. At present the vote is too close to call.

All in all, while NOM’s vindictive smearing of the Iowa justices may have proven effective (and may well prove to bring a chilling effect to future legal battles), we can say that they were big losers tonight.

UPDATE: 10:28 pm PST. LA Times:

With more than half the votes counted, Democrat Richard Pan holds a 51% to 45% lead over Republican Andy Pugno in a seat currently held by Republicans.

Not only may Pugno’s repugnant attack on gay couples have cost him the 5th Assembly seat, it may actually move the Democrats in CA closer to a supermajority. NOM must feel so proud.

Valores tour Days 5, 6, and 7

On Friday, the Vota Tus Valores tour continued with its $1-million bid to win votes for Carly Fiornia. It wasn’t a happy day.

Day 5, Stop 1: Santa Cruz (Mercury News)

The dozen or so protestors, who met the bus at its scheduled stop at the Santa Cruz Mission, outnumbered supporters. The protestors organized when they heard the bus was coming to town and accused tour leaders of trying to mislead Latino voters.

They noted, for example, how Fiorina supports Arizona’s new crack-down on illegal immigration.

“We are here to unmask candidate Fiorina who in reality is not with the Latino community,” Erik Larsen, an SEIU organizer said in a statement.

The confrontation between the two groups was noisy, but without incident.

Day 5, Stop 2: Hollister (Courage Campaign)
This little city is known not for a clothing line (which is Southern Californian) but for its agriculture. One of my first professional tasks was doing an inventory of a seed distributor in Hollister thus, ironically, starting my career as a bean-counter all too literally.

In Hollister, the Vota Bus was greeted by an even larger crowd of SEIU and LGBT equality counter-protesters – 24 in total.
…
Alfonso showed more signs of frustration at this stop. “I know you’re being paid,” Alfonso said to the crowd dismissively.

Day 5, Stop 3: Salinas (The Californian)

A busload of social conservatives tailed by a van full union members and another of progressive advocates are California’s unlikely caravan battling for the Latino vote.

On Friday, they rolled into the Salinas Valley.

The conservative “Vote Your Values” campaign, which supports Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, stopped at Central Park in Salinas to remind Latinos that Democrats are pro-choice and support gay marriage.

The fight over the Latino vote turned into a shouting match between the two sides with few undecideds to hear. The victorious could win the races for the senate and governor.

The roughly 30 union members in attendance out-numbered the group from the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles by about two to one.

Alfonso Aguilar, the group’s executive director, used a microphone to push Latinos to vote for Republican senate candidate Carly Fiorina, but the jeers and chants of “si se peude” nearly drowned him out.

Day 5, Stop 4: Soledad

In Soledad, Pastor Richard Ramos inspired the eight people who had been bused in. You can hear him here.

Day 5, Non-Stop 5: Pasa Robles

Day 5, Non-Stop 6: Santa Maria

The NOM sponsored tour decided to skip the last two stops of the day. This may have been a poor choice, as Courage Campaign reported that there were no protestors and quite a few local Latinos at their planned stop locations.

By this point, Valores has skipped or relocated about as many scheduled stops as they have honored. Perhaps that is why their website has now removed all of the planned stops prior to today.

And on to Saturday, Day 6.

Day 6, Stop 1: Santa Barbara

In Santa Barbera, the Valores tour made the last-minute unusual (and bad) decision to have the first “rally” at their hotel. Sadly, they forgot to tell the press. (Courage Campaign)

Rather than actually get up and engage voters in Santa Barbara, organizers opted instead to host a “private meeting” with bagels and coffee in a conference room provided for free by the hotel.

Tour organizers looked shocked when we arrived at the hotel.

“This is a private meeting,” one organizer quickly said.

“It was advertised on the website,” I replied.

“It was?” asked a new organizer on the tour (he won’t confirm his name so we’ve just been referring to him as “Country Club” because he always looks ready to play golf).

“Yes [it was posted],” confirmed Allegra Herburt-Hewell, Project Director for the Latino Partnership Initiative.

As I sat down for “the meeting” a different organizer began communicating in Portuguese (we believe) with Allegra.

We were then told by Country Club just before being asked to leave that the meeting was posted for people who were invited.
…
A photographer and reporter from the Santa Barbara Press were at Mission Park, the original set location, and luckily were able to get in contact with Allegra and make it to the Best Western Inn in time for the last minute “meeting.”

I was unable to find anything mentioning the tour on the Santa Barbara News-Press website.

Day 6, Stop 2: Camarillo

In Camarillo, we stopped at a private parking lot that included Bank of America, as well as “Nueva Vida”, a Spanish-Christian radio network, for an event.

Courage Campaign doesn’t discuss how well the event went, but a picture suggest that there were a dozen or so listening.

Day 6, Non-Stop 3: Dana Point

The bus was unable to go the the Ritz Carlton, where they were scheduled. But it turns out that their purpose was not really to draw up a crowd anyway. (Orange Juice)

At some point yesterday they erased the Ritz-Carlton “event” from their schedule. Were they trying to throw us off, or had they actually realized that there are no Latinos in that area to convert to the gospel of hate and free markets? Turns out it wasn’t really supposed to be on the schedule in the first place – the fancy beach-side hotel is just where the lucky bus-riders were put up for the weekend – where they’re cooling their heels as I write, in fact, on their Sunday “Day of Rest,” at the expense of some foolish GOP “independent expenditure.”

Day 6, Stop 4: Huntington Beach

So, I got to the good old HB pier early – my home town – with four or five other protesters, and my two freshly-made Spanish-language signs, “Nuestros valores no incluyen odio!” (Our values don’t include hate) and “Carly Fiorina no es tu amiga!” (You can figure that one out.) Dawn, who’d been involved in this longer than the rest of us, was in phone contact with the other Courage Campaigners. Evidently the hate bus was winding erratically up and down PCH, trying to evade its critics. After a while it finally dropped anchor at 6th Street and Main, 3/4 mile from its supposed destination, so we set off on foot to meet it.

By the time we got there, they were just pulling away, heading off back to their comfy hotel in Dana Point for an early start on their weekend of rest, having done all they could for Princess Carly, and utterly uninterested in making human contact with any Huntington Beach people critical or not. Windows closed as always, AC blasting, the bus looked exactly as pictured above. It may just as well have been manned by only a driver rather than the dozen Hispanics and several white NOM homophobes who were apparently hidden inside. But at least Carly and her backers are providing some lucrative temporary employment for these malinches.

And what scared the little group away from Surf City so quickly? It wasn’t so much the dozen or so pro-gay protesters, as it was a man named Don Fuller, a small, well-dressed, very articulate, “Conservative Republican” who had driven all the way from Corona just to ask these people how exactly the Constitution and Declaration of Independence justify denying equal rights to gays, and how they can possibly consider themselves conservative if they believe that. These were questions that they were completely, and mortifyingly, incapable of answering.

And that was it for the weekend. After a day of rest (actually, not at the Ritz Carlton as it turns out, but at the Hyatt Regency Resort and Spa in Huntington Beach) the tour was on to present NOM’s valores today. And, surprise of all surprises, it will actually be NOM presenting them.

Brian Brown, president of NOM, and Jennifer Roback Morse, president of The Ruth Institute, a project of NOM’s Marriage Education Fund, will both be supporting the bus tour as it makes its way around California. Dr. Morse will be at the San Diego stops on Monday, October 4.

I suppose that since they aren’t engaging any Latinos, it doesn’t much matter if their speakers are non-Latino folk who don’t speak Spanish.

Day 7 Stop 1: Santa Ana

The Santa Ana stop had more Victory Outreach members (it now seems there is a bit of a partnership going on).

15 members of the Victory Outreach ministry were present, along with 14 pro-equality counter-protesters.

But in addition to a little campaign stop, NOM & crew also had a little bit of trouble. (Courage Campaign)

Our videographer, Anthony Ash, was just assaulted by a man associated with the Vota Tus Valores tour. The Vota Tus Valores bus stopped at 17th & Main in Santa Ana, in front of the James G. Roche law firm, which is where today’s rally location was held (more on the Roche law firm later). Anthony was wearing a press pass, holding a small Flipcam and walking next to the private parking lot towards the Vota Tus Valores Bus when approached by an older Latino man (seen below) who said that our Trackers were on private property.

The man, who claimed to be the owner of the property, angrily told Anthony that this was private property, and quickly struck Anthony in the arm, knocking the camera to the ground. Our tour camera has been damaged, and we’re not sure that footage can be recovered.

It turns out that Vota Tus Valores’ main spokesman, Alfonso Aguilar, has just joined the James G. Roche law firm. Actually, as best I can tell from their website, he’s the only person working for the James G. Roche law firm.

Day 7, Stop 2: Oceanside

After we completed the filing of the police complaint in Santa Ana, we were lucky to catch up with the Vota Bus in Oceanside at Camarillo Park. One non-Latino supporter of the Vota Bus was present as organizers didn’t even bother to pull out the sound equipment. It appeared as though organizers were merely taking a stretch break while talking to the man who was holding a small video camera.

Day 7, Stop 3: Escondido

In Escondido, six men from the Victory Outreach ministry were bused in, joined by two other supporters of the Vota Bus

And the star power was brought to full use.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse from the Ruth Institute was handed the microphone and gave a short speech on life and traditional marriage before handing out “one man, one women” bumper stickers to the small crowd.

Day 7, Stop 4: Rally in San Diego

This is scheduled to take place at 7:00 pm at Communidad Christiana Nam. I can hardly wait to hear about it.

Tus Valores gets supporters

The National Organization for Marriage sponsored Vota Tus Valores tour picked up some support yesterday. They had Latinos there to support Carly Fiorina and her anti-gay values in Stocton and in Modesto and in Fresno. Too bad they were all the same people just moving with them from stop to stop. (Courage Campaign)

Day 4, Stop 1: Stockton

Twenty minutes after 10 AM, the Vota Bus finally arrived at Weber Point park in Stockton with three large vans filled with 42 (predominantly Latino and male) members of an organization called Victory Outreach, a Christian men’s group that does outreach in inner-city communities. Three local equality supporters also stopped by to check things out.

Day 4, Stop 2: Modesto

In Modesto, Tus Valores took what they called “a beautiful impromptu stop at a Market in Modesto” with their bus and three vans full of Victory Outreach men.

Day 4, Non-stop 3: Merced

Rather than show up at Applegate Community Park, Tus Valores decided to stop for enchiladas. Which is unfortunate because it looks like they missed the chance to meet a supporter – and with the “crowds” they are drawing, everyone counts.

Four equality supporters stood in a near empty park (one Latino man and his son were there) in Merced.

They even had a few folks show up specifically to see the bus.

Later three women and a young girl (all Caucasian) stopped at the park for the “Susan B. Anthony” event.

“Where’s the bus?” one woman asked. “Why aren’t there any people here?”

Day 4, Stop 4: Fresno

In Fresno, nine members of the Victory Outreach ministry were bused to Vallarta market and received literature from the Vota Tus Valores organizer.

Three counter-protesters were present, although only one was vocal, chanting “no es vertad” (“that’s not true”) as Alfonso and Karyme made their speeches to the small crowd.

Day 4, Stop 5: Los Banos

One of the few things I know how to say in Spanish is the useful phrase, “¿dónde están los baños, por favor?” (where are the bathrooms, please?) So I was surprised to see that the Valores tour would announce an official tour stop at Los Banos.

Well it turns out that this is the name of a town in California. We have some really bizarrely bastardized Spanish place names in this state, but “Los Banos”? Really? I can only imagine what teasing the locals get. (And get your mind out of the sewer, the mascot of Los Banos High School is “the tigers”)

On their was to Los Banos, the bus made an unexpected stop. Karyme Lozano, Mexican telenovela star, was getting off the bus and going home. Karyme was the “celebrity” draw.

Lozano had been a supporter of the community and had even been the “queen” of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade in 2008. But then her father died and she had an epiphany. She abandoned her “wild life” and embraced religion. She has since taken on celibacy and is encouraging “her gay friends” to do so as well.

However, it seems that she wasn’t exactly aware the extent to which NOM has taken on the role of oppressor of gay people or the extent to which they fund anti-gay activism. And she was clearly unaccustomed to being thought of as a bigot or hateful. (Funny how people who can dedicate a week of their life to opposing our equality are hurt when we don’t accept them as benevolent or just as having “another opinion”. I wonder how she would feel if I spent a week traveling to deny her rights.)

Once they got to Los Banos, they were greeted by seven supporters. So this was one of their more successful stops on one of their more successful days. But news reports from Santa Cruz suggest that today was not so fun for the Vota Tus Valores tourists.

(Ugh… now I’ve got ¿dónde están los baños, por favor? playing in my head to the tune of Do you know the way to San Jose?)

NOM’s filing was a mess

Last week the National Organization for Marriage sued in Federal court, claiming that they should not be subject to Rhode Island’s political expenditure disclosure laws. The court was not impressed (Boston Globe)

U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi said that the lawsuit from the National Organization for Marriage is disorganized, vague and poorly constructed. The judge said the relevant allegations were “buried” in the lawsuit.

Lisi dismissed the lawsuit, but said the group has the option to refile it by Wednesday.

Why am I not surprised.

NOM’s “Valores” tour draws protesters

Yesterday, the National Organization for Marriage’s “Vota Tus Valores” bus tour to drum up Hispanic vote for Carly Fiorina finally drew a crowd. Of protesters.

We already discussed their first stop for some Jelly Belly goodness. So we’ll pick up from there (Courage Campaign)

Day 3, Stop 2: Napa

In Napa, 32 counter-protesters greeted the Vota Bus tour with chants of “more jobs, more jobs.”

The face of the tour, Alfonso, was uncertain what to do when faced with a sea (or at least a pond) of Barbara Boxer signs and nary a single Carly Fiorina supporter. But, just for his info, trying to lecture or out-shout protesters just isn’t a very effective use of time. And no one sounds good with such zingers as “If you’re sick of killing babies, you better vote for Carly.”

Day 3, Non-Stop 3: Concord
Day 3, Non-Stop 4: Alameda

Rather than make the two scheduled stops, the Valores tour stopped for lunch and tequila shots. Which is probably just as well as this is what was waiting for them at the scheduled Alameda stop.

Day 3, Stop 5: San Jose

In East San Jose the Carly bus did not go over well.

Napa may have been the first stop where an organized oppositional counter-protest came out to greet the Vota Bus, but East San Jose was clearly the most vocal. When we arrived there were approximately 34 counter-protesters, mostly Latino.

Day 3, Stop 6: San Mateo

While San Jose’s protest was predominantly a Latino objection to Carly Fiorina, in San Mateo the protest was led by those supporting gay equality.

In San Mateo, the Vota Bus was met by 14 equality counter-protesters from organizations like PFLAG and Marriage Equality USA. Tour organizers made marginal attempts to engage about 4 people who were sitting in the local park and two of the volunteer organizers attempted to have a civil discourse with two of the equality supporters.

You have to wonder what Fiorina’s camp was thinking. This is a three-fer, not only does this tour annoy the Boxer supporters, but it also challenges the established Latino political machine and the gay supporters. Any other combination and they might have raised no attention at all, but this message coupled with this partnership was almost guaranteed to result in negative press.

And portraying yourself as a social conservative extremist is not a good idea in California. When we elect Republicans, we want them to be of the moderate variety. There hasn’t been a socially conservative Republican elected to Governor or Senator since George Deukmejian was re-elected in 1986.

NOM’s “Valores” tour has a sweet start today

Today the National Organization for Marriage’s tour to whip up Latino support for Carly Fiorina got off to a sweet start. At the Jelly Belly jellybean factory. Where they were told not to pass out materials or approach other customers.

Day 3, Stop 1: Fairfield

But they did get to go on a tour of the factory and get free samples, so that’s something.

This is it for now, but check this commentary later as Courage Campaign updates the third day in the “Vota Tus Valores” tour. Who knows, at some point they may actually find a Latino voter who supports Fiorina and you wouldn’t want to miss that.

Follow up on how NOM’s “Valores” tour went yesterday

When I last reported on the National Organization for Marriage’s “Vota Tus Valores” tour, they had one stop with four supporters (and nine protesters), one stop where they didn’t get out of the bus, missed one stop, and were late for the next one.

Courage Campaign brings us up to date.

Day 2, Stop 4: Colusa

NOM’s bus did finally make it to a Burger King parking lot in Colusa where they were successful in finding some Latinos, six in fact. Unfortunately, they were fifth graders, not voters.

Day 2, Stop 5: Willows

In Willows, the Vota Tus Valores bus stopped just long enough to grab a beer and a bag of pork rinds (I’m not making this stuff up).

I don’t think the pork rinds are registered to vote and, if so, may well not be Carly Fiorina supporters.

Day 2, Stop 6: Davis

Around dusk, the bus finally made it to the UC-Davis campus.

I truly am having difficulty understanding what this is all about. As a traveling billboard, the message is not adequately presented; Carly Fiorina’s name is not prominent. As a rallying tour, it is an absolute failure. I cannot fathom the people who are riding on that bus day after day and never having any audience to talk to or any events to talk about. I hope they brought books.

If you thought NOM’s tour yesterday was bad…

The National Organization for Marriage seems to be running into a little problem getting people to show up for their “Vota Tus Valores” tour. Yesterday was kinda discouraging with a total of 17 folks at five stops (15 were all from one stop) but today was the kind of day that makes California’s anti-gay Latino Republicans sad at heart.

Day 2, Stop 1: Sacramento

Our state’s capital didn’t exactly swarm out to greet NOM. (Courage Campaign)

Already progressive supporters are beginning to out-organize the tour. The count in Sacramento was 9 to 4.

Day 2, Stop 2: Placerville

The following picture includes all of the ralliers at this stop:

NOM didn’t even get off the bus.

Day 2, Stop 3: Yuba City

The tour website said they would be at the Gauche Aquatic Center at 1:15 pm. But they didn’t show up.

Courage Campaign asked the Aquatic Center and it turns out NOM never followed through with a request to use the parking lot. Fortunately CC was ran into NOM & crew where they had stopped for lunch and now are stuck following the bus.

Day 2, Stop 4: Colusa

The bus was to be there at 2:30, but as of 2:40 they hadn’t left Yuba City (CC will update tonight) so perhaps Colusa is another no-show. Why not? It’s not like anyone is there waiting for them.

NOM sues to keep the donors behind their political campaigns a secret

The National Organization for Marriage really really doesn’t want anyone knowing what handful of mega-bucks donors are behind their political advertising. So, as is their usual methodology, they are suing the State of Rhode Island claiming that the handful of individuals and groups they are fronting for have the right to unaccountable and secret “free speech.” (NECN)

A group that opposes same-sex marriage sued the Rhode Island Board of Elections, saying it wants to run ads in the governor’s race and other contests but doesn’t want to have to comply with state campaign finance laws.

The National Organization for Marriage said in a federal lawsuit that it should not be forced to report its expenditures or comply with spending limits or bans that are required for political action committees. The group said it shouldn’t be considered a PAC because it’s not controlled by a political candidate and does not spend the majority of its money on Rhode Island’s political races. It says the rules for PACs are burdensome and interfere with free speech.

They consistently lose these cases, but they refuse to report until they appeal, a process that drags on through election season after election season. Eventually some judge is going to get so annoyed that he holds Brian Brown in contempt. And then, I suppose, we will find out who really is the source of NOM’s funds.

NOM’s all new Tour of, well, nobody

Carly Fiorina must be loco. Muy loco.

Why else would she agree to let the National Organization for Marriage organize a bus tour to support her campaign for US Senator from California. In Spanish.

Over the summer, NOM spent 19 days traveling about various states to promote their agenda of excluding gay people from civil marriage rights. And although they only made 21 stops, they were so abysmally disorganized that in some events the organizers outnumbered the attendees. They seemed to have the strange approach to bus tours of “if you park it, they will come.”

Now consider, if you will, the same organizers (along with the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, American Principles in Action and the Susan B. Anthony List). Except this time the tour will have several stops per day, will target Latinos to support of a Republican Senate candidate, and will be in Spanish.

Yesterday, the “Vota Tus Valores” campaign (“Vote your Values”) rolled is off to a start. And it is laughably predictable. (Courage Campaign)

Stop 1: Bakersfield

Only one “values-voter” stopped by, but she was not Latina.

“I was shopping at Target when I saw the bus across the street and wanted to see what it was all about,” she told me.

We initially counted 8 in attendance, but 7 were organizers that got back on the bus at the end of the stop.

Stop 2: Visalia

The Vota Tus Valores bus tour kept up its attendance average in Visalia — 1 person showed up.

“I vote according to God’s will,” said one Latina woman who happened to be in the park when the bus pulled up but refused to go on-camera.

Stop 3: Hanford

No one at all. Zilch. Nada.

Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that on the hottest day of the year (Los Angeles set a new record: the hottest day ever recorded in the city) you aren’t going to find too many people hanging out in a nice bright sunny park. But surely you could have tried to organize someone.

Stop 4: Madera

Success. At last an audience. Not of likely voters, exactly, but at least living breathing bodies.

In Madera, the advance team was able to wrangle up a few additional attendees: fifteen men from a local Christian men’s shelter were present to “show support,” including one man wearing an Obama shirt and a reformed neo-Nazi who was heavily tatotted with swastikas.

Stop 5: Roseville

Here the bus pulled up for dinner. At a chain “mexican” restaurant. Even the waiter wasn’t Latino.

And that, my friends, is what you get when NOM organizes your bus tour. Thank God.

More amicus, more animus

Those who oppose civil equality simply can’t restrain themselves from supporting the Proponents of Proposition 8. Although history is going to be rather unkind to them (and we will both document and remember), there is almost a sense of desperation to the compulsion to go on record as favoring inequality, supporting supremacist attitudes and expressing dismay that their views may be held up to inspection.

Today I have a whole long list of amicus briefs to add to those who previously have come down on the side of institutionalized discrimination. You can check them all out here.

Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson – You may recall that Robert George was one of the founders of the National Organization for Marriage. His argument is that the state does indeed have interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs. Further, “a belief that a relationship between a man and woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women” and “moral disapproval of homosexuality” are both legitimate bases for legislation. And because any position has some moral values assigned, then therefor the value of heterosexual supremacy is a perfectly fine one on which to base law. Oh, and Lawrence v. Texas only applies to criminal law.

NARTH (yes, NARTH!!) – Typical NARTHian science to argue that homosexuality is not immutable and therefore gay people should not have rights. Example “the study also found that those who report themselves as homosexuals showed variety in their sexual experiences when measured on a continuum: 65 percent of homosexual men and 84 percent of homosexual women reported having had heterosexual intercourse.” Lots of discussion of studies from decades gone by in which psychotherapy resulted in “functioning as heterosexual” and a lot of misrepresentation of the work of others (Spitzer and Jones and Yarhouse, for example.)

Pacific Justice Institute – The Greeks and the Romans didn’t allow gay marriage so neither should we. They started with “the Greeks and Romans were clearly not homophobic” but just couldn’t resist the impulse to put in every example of Greek or Roman condemnation that could be found and concluded “Hence, defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman reflects not only the collected wisdom of the citizens, but of the ages as well.”

The States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. – More specifically, the attorneys general of these states. The argument: Walker exceeded his judicial authority; the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over marriage. Loving was justified “to uphold the core guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment” but Perry would “recast the basic parameters of marriage.” The rest was a rerun of the Proponents’ failing arguments in court.

American College of Pediatricians – Remember this totally bogus group from the lie-ridden letter crafted by NARTH but sent under their name? They are back with the predictable “Think of the Children!! Children need a mommy and a daddy. Ignore what the real professional groups say” message.

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (John Eastman) – Eastman was NOM’s special pick for CA Attorney General – he lost badly in the Republican primary, 16 points below Steve Cooley, who had opposed Proposition 8. Reading this political rant (it really can’t be called a legal argument), I am relieved that this guy has no chance of representing my state in court… or at least not this year. His argument: ” The Initiative Proponents have standing to defend Proposition 8, both as Agents of the State and in their own right”.

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty – Gay equality is incompatible with religious liberty. If gay people are treated as full citizens and granted equal access to civil marriage, then those religious individuals and groups that oppose civil equality and support heterosexual supremacy might be sued for discrimination. Those people who operate “job training programs, child care, gyms and day camps” would not be able to discriminate, and if they did, they might not get taxpayer dollars with which to deny gay people access. And that’s why the voters approved Proposition 8: to support “religious liberty” to discriminate against gays. (They got $500 K from the Knights of Columbus last year)

National Legal Foundation – These folk call themselves “a Christian public interest law firm” but are best known as the legal team who defended Cincinnati’s Issue 3, which would have amended the city charter to ban any city laws and policies that would prohibit discrimination against gay Cincinnati residents in employment, housing, and other areas. They disagree with Walker’s finding of fact and argue that the Ninth Circuit should revisit and reverse them. In the Cincinnati case, the Sixth Circuit reversed a number of the lower court’s findings and NLF gloatingly says that this court should do the same. They fail to mention that the US Supreme Court reversed the decision and found that Cincinnati violated the US Constitution.

Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly) – The Proponents and Imperial county have standing. And if they don’t have standing, then there’s no case and the whole thing should be thrown out entirely, including Judge Walker’s ruling.

Concerned Women of America – Gays are politically powerful, have powerful allies, significant funding, and the public is growing in support. So discrimination against gay people should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny. “As of June 1, 2009, thirty-one states and the District of Columbia had state laws regarding “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation.” (I wonder what else 31 states had?)

National Organization for Marriage (NOM – Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher) – Ah, NOM, we knew you’d participate. NOM has a number of interesting arguments. Yes, there are “children need a mommy and daddy” and “marriage is about procreation” and “you’re redefining marriage”, but they also have these fascinating (and oh-so-classy) things to share:

Men will no longer be willing to support their children: “When society simply weakens its support for the ideal that children should be cared for by both the man and the woman who made them, children end up disproportionately in the care of solo mothers. What will happen when the law and society rejects that view altogether as irrational bigotry? If the district court has its way, we will find out.”

Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest: “If, as the district court suggests, marriage were to become an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people to enhance their own personal well-being, it is wrong, discriminatory, and counterproductive for the state to favor certain kinds of intimate relations over others. Sisters can cohabit and commit, and so can best friends in non-romantic relationships. Three people can cohabit and commit, too. Why can’t these people claim marriage as well? Once a key feature of marriage has been deconstructed, other historic features of marriage will become much harder to explain and defend, both in law and culture.”

And my very favorite: Look at Massachusetts; If you allow gay marriage then – oh noes – people will support it. “Data from Massachusetts likewise does little to alleviate concerns that same- sex marriage could lead to negative consequences. To the contrary, the data relied upon by the district court actually suggests a weakening in the marriage culture in the years immediately following the same-sex marriage ruling in Massachusetts. … In 2009, amicus curiae National Organization for Marriage commissioned a survey in Massachusetts of attitudes about marriage five years into that state’s experiment with same-sex marriage. The survey found that ―in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent.”

Paul McHugh – McHugh is perhaps best known for his anti-transgender activism. But he’s joining in amicus to declare that you can’t define “homosexual” and it’s not fixed or immutable (presumably unlike race which is always and ever immediately discernible). Because while many people fit all three definitions (attractions, behavior, identity) there are exceptions. So therefore someone who is same-sex attracted, in a relationship with another person of the same sex, and who identifies as being gay should not be considered to be homosexual because, after all, there are people in the closet.

And because you can’t define “homosexual” then a woman in love with her same-sex partner ought not be able to marry her. Further, because there is no gay gene (unlike the African-American gene). It may be caused by education (I love this one): Because “It may very well be the case that on average lesbians and gay men in the United States have a higher educational level than comparable heterosexual men and women”, there therefore, “Education and socioeconomic levels have also been suggested as contributing factors to homosexuality.” Really? By whom? That has to be the worst example of correlation = causation that I’ve seen in a while.

But to understand the depth of McHugh’s basic dishonesty and lack of any sense of moral character, you have to consider ” Identical twin studies confirm that homosexual orientation is not genetically determined.”
Actually, twin studies have found that genetics contribute 35-39% for men and 18-19% for women. In other words, while it’s not fully genetically determined, McHugh is implying the opposite of what the studies have found.

Eugene Dong – No idea who this guy is but his argument is this: It’s expensive to have children so the state benefits by subsidizing and benefiting heterosexuality so as to perpetuate the human race.

American Civil Rights Union (sort of an anti-ACLU) – fundamental rights are limited to those that are deep-rooted in American history and tradition.

Catholics for the Common Good – God’s definition of marriage pre-exists any state recognition. They make the usual arguments (including quoting the Pope as an authority), but their real objection is found in their request to file the amicus: “…because the district court’s opinion enshrined a re-definition of marriage in California law that may expose this and similar organizations and persons of good will to claims of discrimination…” It’s the Maggie complaint, “If you treat gay people equally under the law, then those of us who want to treat them as inferior will be called bigots.”

And one woman, Tamara L. Cravit, wrote in to say that the Proponents do not have standing. So far she’s the only pro-plaintiff amicus brief.

Knights of Columbus funds NOM

The National Organization for Marriage refuses to follow state laws that require disclosure of who is paying for political advertising. And while some speculate that they are a front for the Mormon Church, I suspect that behind the paper face of Brian Brown lies a handful of very wealthy, very devout, very conservative Catholics who wish to influence legislators and voters without their identity being known.

But whoever provides the major funding, we now know that a chunk of it comes from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal order.

On their website, the KOC talks about the good they do:

Our Catholic faith teaches us to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Members of the Knights of Columbus show love for their neighbors by conducting food drives and donating the food to local soup kitchens and food pantries, by volunteering at Special Olympics, and by supporting, both spiritually and materially, mothers who choose life for their babies. Knights recognize that our mission, and our faith in God, compels us to action. There is no better way to experience love and compassion than by helping those in need, a call we answer every day.

But what get’s less attention is where their money really goes. While they tell the reader that “During the past decade, the Knights of Columbus has donated more than $1.367 billion to charity,” the Knights define “charity” a bit differently than many of us.

Of the $34.6 million that the Supreme Council spent in 2009, only $3.0 went for doing good deeds. Eight million went to the church’s hierarchy, five million for the KOC museum, three million on “evangelization”, and over six million went for “family life” and “pro-life” programs ($4.7 million for anti-gay and $1.9 million for anti-abortion political advocacy). In 2009, one of the Knights’ largest individual donations, $1,430,000, went to the National Organization for Marriage.

In addition to the $34.6 million distributed by the Supreme Council, there were an additional $116 million in “contributions from state and local councils assemblies and Squires circles.” We do not know how much of the $116 million went to NOM.

NOM received total contributions of about $8,000,00 that year. It spent about $1.8 million on Maine’s referendum to block same-sex marriage.

(hat tip Washington Independent)

NOM’s DC candidates lose big

Remember the political mailer sent out by the National Organization for Marriage to support a District of Columbia counsel candidate?

Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because the supports the Biblical definition of marriage.

Of course there was no flooding of outside money, other than that which NOM was raining on their favorite anti-gay candidate. But it turns out that their money was wasted. (TBD)

NOM’S CANDIDATES ALL LOSE: And bad. Council candidate Delano Hunter, endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage, lost to incumbent Harry Thomas Jr. in the Ward 5 race. Delano secured 20 percent of the vote to Thomas’ 62. At-large council member Phil Mendelson, a champion of marriage equality, was re-elected. And in the Mayoral election, NOM’s favorite anti-gay-marriage candidate, Leo Alexander, secured a pathetic .62 percent of the vote in the mayoral contest. That’s gotta sting.

Thomas is giving NOM credit for helping him beat the candidate they supported. (Metro Weekly)

Thomas, a Democrat who voted for the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, is confident that his vote was not just right, but also good politics, saying, ”[I]f I had been on the other side of this issue as a councilmember, I wouldn’t have been as successful [in my re-election campaign].”
…
What’s more, Thomas said NOM’s actions ”solidified [his] position” on his vote for the marriage bill.

”I think that what you see is voters were not singularly focused [on marriage], and there was a small group of individual who I believed focused on – frankly – a lot of misinformation,” he said. ”[NOM] tried to deceptively cast their campaign around people being denied the right to vote – without explaining the human-rights issue.”

NOM blatantly appeals to homophobia

The National Organization for Marriage has now officially become part of the wackadoodle extremist end of the anti-gay religious right. While Maggie Gallagher was officially at the helm, they managed to carry a pretense of civility and wore the mask of being issue driven rather than just acting out of animus and contempt.

But now that Brian Brown is the name on the masthead, the mask has come off. NOM no longer pretends to be civil, but instead now is openly using the tactics and language of those who seek not just to “protect traditional marriage” but to demonize gay people themselves and stir up hatred towards them.

No longer content with scare tactics such as “Mommy, I can grow up to marry a princess”, NOM is now spreading fear about radical homosexual activists and putting “gay marriage” in scare quotes. NOM has now become indistinguishable from Peter LaBarbera or Brain Camenker or Eugene Delguadio.

When the District of Columbia voted for marriage equality, NOM has become infuriated. And so they have involved themselves in the Washington DC councilman race.

Ward 5 Councilman Harry Thomas voted for marriage equality in the nation’s capital, so NOM has declared him to be an enemy and has funded a mailer for his opponent, Delano Hunter. It is as disgusting a piece of blatant nastiness as one would expect to find coming from MassResistance or the Traditional Values Coalition:

Thousands of dollars from homosexual activists outside Ward 5 are attacking Delano Hunter become he supports our right to vote on whether the District legalizes “gay marriage.”

Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because the supports the Biblical definition of marriage.

The outside gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on gay marriage. They only care about their agenda to redefine marriage. Don’t let them target Delano Hunter.

There is, of course, no explanation of why the Sister is in the picture. We don’t need one; we know exactly why that picture was selected. The Sisters are “scary” and for those who don’t know better she makes a good illustration of just what a radical homosexual looks like.

And, of course, since it’s NOM, the claim is a complete lie. Not a cent has been given to Thomas from “militant gay activists” in San Francisco or New York.

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher loves nothing more than to complain that mean gay marriage supporters are calling her names. “They call us bigots,” she whines at every opportunity.

At BTB we seldom engage in slinging slurs like “bigot” or “homophobe” or “liar” at those who oppose our equality. It serves no purpose and tends to shut down any possible hope for dialogue. And the truth is that most of those who don’t favor equality actually aren’t motivated by hatred or animus. Prejudice, presumption, and apathy are probably more to blame.

But while I am not calling Brian or Maggie names or accusing them of being bigots or homophobes, this particular mailer seeks to do nothing other than to appeal to hatred and fear. This mailer is, without question, bigoted and homophobic.

NOM loses in Maine, election laws are constitutional

The National Organization for Marriage spent about 1.8 million dollars in Maine in 2009 to successfully support a referendum to block same-sex marriage. But in the process they refused to comply with Maine’s election laws about disclosure of expenditures and donors.

As part of their strategy, NOM sued the state in Federal court, claiming that campaign laws unconstitutionally burdened them and threatened their First Amendment rights to free speech. While this was not specifically tied to the Referendum 1 issue, but rather to NOM’s desire to anonymously fund campaign ads for or against specific candidates, it was their best chance at beating disclosure.

In this suit, they challenged:

* the definition of a Political Action Committee (PAC)
* independent expenditure requirements
* disclosure requirements.

Today District Judge Brock Hornby released his ruling. And – as some news sources are reporting – he agreed that the law is overly broad. But those areas of agreement with NOM were inconsequential to the conclusion: they must report the names of their donors.

Specifically, the judge found that within the language “for the purpose of promoting, defeating or influencing in any way the nomination or election of any candidate to political office”, the words “influencing in any way” were too broad and must be considered stricken from the language. But there is no ambiguity about NOM’s participation so this revision does not in any way impact NOM’s disclosure requirement.

The judge also struck down a requirement that any expenditure of $250 at any time must be disclosed within 24 hours as being unreasonably burdensome. But, again, this has no impact on NOM.

The judge recommended that the legislature tweak the law to adjust for those minor findings. (NPBN)

Anne Luther of the group Maine Citizens for Clean Elections is pleased with the court’s ruling.

“Our first reading of it is that this is 95 percent a vindication of Maine’s PAC reporting laws; that this is by and large upholding our reporting and disclosure laws. It’s entirely constitutional,” Luther says. “The judge carved out two very, very narrow exceptions, one of which may be able to be handled very easily by additional rule-making but these are very very narrow exceptions that leave the vast majority of our PAC reporting for this election coming up entirely intact.”

This is but one more victory leading up to the day that NOM is forced to disclose exactly on whose behalf they are a front. Current speculation is either the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church, but it could be any of several other wealthy but secretive sources.

But this ruling did disclose some information. For example, while they did have about 35,000 “members” last year, the dues from such membership only raised about $350,000, or around $10 each and there are not that many more contributions from small donors. NOM has a budget of about 13 million dollars for 2010. And about 90% of these funds will come in the form of large donors.

NOM is not a grass root organization.