Box Turtle Bulletin

About those seven million, Maggie…

Tomorrow is closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case over whether Proposition 8 was in violation to the US Constitution. Here’s what National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has to say about it:

This is an outrage that never should have happened: 7 million Californians exercised their core civil rights to speak, to donate, to organize and to vote for marriage. Around the country millions of other have invested their time and their treasure. And Ted Olson today will be asking the courts to nullify our right to vote for marriage.

Well 7,001,084 does sound like a lot of folks. But let’s just for a moment put it in perspective.

• In 2008, the population of California was 36,756,666. So about 19.0% of Californians voted for Prop 8.
• In 2008, there were 23,208,710 people eligible to vote in California. About 30.2% of eligible Californians voted to take away marriage rights.
• At the time of the election, there were 17,304,091 people registered to vote in the state. Of registered voters, about 40.5% showed up at the polls to “vote for marriage” restricted to heterosexuals.
• A total of 13,743,177 voters turned up to vote. Of them 50.9% voted for proposition 8.
• There were 13,402,566 votes cast on Proposition 8. Of them, 7,001,084 (or 52.2%) voted for the proposition and 6,401,482 (or 47.8%) voted against it.

Yes, Proposition 8 won. But let’s not pretend that Californians as a whole were so fired up about marriage that they all couldn’t wait for the chance to vote against equality. Less than a third of eligible voters supported this bill enough to show up and vote for it.

Support Tom Campbell

California Senator Barbara Boxer has long been a friend of our community. But she has also long been considered a relatively weak candidate, and as the Democrat is 168 years old (ok, really only 69) and this is a “mid-term election”, there is a good chance that she could be defeated in November. Our community should be very concerned about who her Republican opponent will be.

There are three candidates for the Republican nomination:

Chuck Devore – Devore is the choice of the hard-core right. He’s is the old-school family values candidate who is running for office so as to protect the family from horrible people like you, me, and sinners of various flavors. He’s endorsed by the usual collection of knuckle-draggers.

Carly Fiorina – Fiorina is the “business candidate”. She was a successful executive at Hewlett Packard and is probably somewhat moderate on social issues. However, she is trying to sell herself as a “conservative” and thus distinguish herself from Campbell (including the now infamous Demon Sheep ad which seriously backfired). Fiorina created domestic partnership programs at HP, but also voted for Proposition 8. She has the endorsement of Sarah Palin.

Tom Campbell – Campbell is a fiscal conservative and social moderate, and a long-time friend of our community. In October 2008, Campbell wrote a piece for Reason Magazine in which he argued that Republicans should support gay marriage and oppose Proposition 8.

Depending on what poll you read, Campbell is either slightly ahead or about tied with Fiorina. And there are only three weeks left before the primary election. He needs our support.

That Campbell is an ally is a good reason to support him in the California Republican Primary. That he’s much needed in Washington is another.

Campbell is uniquely equipped to address the problems we are currently facing. Tom has a PhD in economics and has taught law at Stanford, with a particular emphasis on the application of economics to legal problems. It’s known in political circles that Tom is usually “the smartest person in the room.”

If there is one thing that the Senate is lacking, it’s people who understand economics. Or perhaps those who can do remedial math.

Campbell is a fiscal conservative, but not in a crazy way. Although he’s been twice rated as the most “fiscally responsible” member of Congress, he refuses to sign the wacky “no taxes” pledges or make promises that sound good to ideologues but are irresponsible in practice.

But perhaps the most convincing argument as to why you should support Tom Campbell is that the National Organization for Marriage has been running a campaign against him. Their biggest fear is that California might send a Republican to the Senate who supports marriage equality and harm their divisive game of playing one party off the other. If Campbell were to be elected, it would send a message that Republicans too can support basic fairness and equality.

So NOM has been running ads in the state trying to claim that Campbell is no different from “liberal Barbara Boxer”, in the hopes of hurting him in the primary. Tom, to his credit, has been classy in his response, refusing to throw us under the bus for a few votes. They have now started a campaign of robo-calls.

“The explicit message of this campaign is: don’t vote for Tom Campbell, because he supports gay marriage as well as raising taxes,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM, in a statement.

This is a blatant appeal to bigotry.

I desperately do not want this election to give NOM more perceived power or greater influence over the positions of future candidates. If Tom loses, there is no question but that they will threaten any other Republican who considers abandoning homophobia or anti-gay policies.

Please take a moment to consider whether and how you can help Tom Campbell and give him a chance to present his case against Barbara Boxer. I would very much like to know that whoever wins in November, California’s Senator will remain supportive of my rights.

(Please note that decline-to-state or independent voters may request the primary ballot of any party and can vote for Campbell in June)

New Hampshire results silence NOM’s Maggie Gallagher

On March 10th, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher was euphoric. She was joyously reporting that the residents of New Hampshire had voted to reject same-sex marriage (National Review Online)

Of the vote results reported by the Union-Leader, along with a couple from the Concord Monitor, seventeen towns approved and three rejected the article.

Voting for a marriage amendment were: Charlestown (620-305), Kingston (719-346), Milton (385-285), Littleton (912-627), Wakefield (504-242), Dunbarton (77-58), Kingston (719-346), Windham (1,428-832), Epsom (422-225), Bedford (2,783-1,040), Hampstead (1,190-499), Allenstown (383-198), Auburn, Swanzey (542-422), Stark (unanimously), Pittsburg (64-4), and Belmont.

Rejecting were Newhampton, Salisbury (30-27), and Northumberland (57-104).

This is a partial list; still looking for full electoral info.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! She chortled in her joy.

To understand what this means, we have to take a step back and look at how same-sex marriage came to New Hampshire and what these town votes mean.

New Hampshire is one of two states in which the legislature passed a bill which was signed by the governor which changed the family law code to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was not due to a lawsuit or other court action but was an act of the purest representative government.

To reverse this law, anti-gay activists have a few options.

They can vote for representatives who oppose marriage equality who could then repeal the law. But while it is possible for marriage rights to appear and disappear with the change (or whim) of the elected representatives, many legislators are hesitant to play so cavalierly with the lives of their constituents. Further, the representatives are aware that changing laws back and forth create complexities and legal confusion which would both make their jobs more difficult and open them up to criticism.

They can lobby for a change in the constitution, a one-time fix. However, New Hampshire does not have a initiative process and the constitution can only be changed in two ways.

The state has a provision by which a constitutional convention can be called. Every ten years (or by a majority of both houses) the people vote on whether to call a convention (the next vote is scheduled for 2012). Then delegates are elected and a convention convened. Amendments to the constitution require a 3/5 vote of the delegates and a 2/3 vote of the people. Anti-gay activists may encourage a “yes” vote on the next constitutional convention question.

The second method for changing the constitution for both houses, by a 3/5 vote, to place an amendment on the ballot. Such an amendment would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the electorate. And it was towards the last method that the rhetoric of the anti-gay activists was directed. NOM (among others) sought to demonstrate that it was the will of the people that they be allowed to vote on the issue. And this was the focus of their language: marriage is too important to be decided by the legislature, it should have the input of the people.

NOM was hoping that folks who were moderate or even supportive of marriage would agree that a “people’s vote” was needed. And once it was on the ballot, they would dump tens of millions of dollars (from undisclosed sources) to fund a campaign of bald-faced lies and seek to enshrine the doctrines of some religious organizations into civil law.

To put pressure on the legislature and create an impression of public support, anti-gay activists used a political mechanism that is peculiar to New England states: the town meeting, a gathering of the residents to determine town business. They sought to have the towns demand of the state that the residents be allowed to vote on marriage equality.

There are (basically) two types of town meeting. A traditional type, which is a public gathering on the second Tuesday in March, works well for small communities. And, since 1995, the state has allowed a two-part meeting (called an SB2 Meeting) in which first a deliberate session is held, which creates wording, and then residents vote through polling places. These votes occur on the second Tuesday of March, April, or May. To get a matter up for consideration at a town meeting, concerned citizens can collect twenty-five signatures on a petition.

So anti-gay activists organized to have towns pass a non-binding resolution, an “opinion of the people”, if you will, to ask the legislature to “let us vote. And using the town meeting approach was actually a pretty smart move. Cities, such as Portsmouth or Dover, don’t have a non-binding resolution process, so any results would skew towards smaller towns or rural communities where conservative sentiment was more likely to thrive. Further, those fired up to “fight the homosexual agenda” were more likely to attend than residents who weren’t much interested either way.

The best scenario for anti-gay activists would be for each town to endorse the “let us vote” effort by 2/3 of the residents. This could allow NOM to spin the results as evidence that a constitutional amendment would pass and that residents demand their rights. But success would be a majority of voters – or a majority of towns – which would allow Maggie and Brian to claim that they speak for “the people”.

Even “a majority of those towns which voted”, while meaningless, would allow Maggie a press release (for NOM it’s all about perception and spin) and a “victory”. Any result which could be stretched to suggest that the legislators were out of touch with the residents of New Hampshire.

Thus the gloating comments she made at NRO.

But it seems that Maggie forgot to comment once the “full electoral info” was found. And she has good reason not to want to discuss the decisions of the New Hampshire towns.

Dean Barker at Blue Hampshire has compiled the votes to date, and here is what he found:

Traditional meetings:

28 towns supported the anti-gay effort
61 towns did not provide enough signatures
31 towns tabled the bill, refusing to even vote on it
33 towns voted “no” on the measure
1 town flipped the effort and voted to commend the state for supporting equality

SB2 Meetings:

31 towns supported the anti-gay effort
10 towns did not provide enough signatures
14 towns amended the language in the deliberative session, killing the petition
1 town flipped the effort but failed to vote to commend the state for supporting equality

There are 11 towns yet to decide. But of the 210 towns which could have supported the efforts of the anti-gay activists, only 59 chose to do so. Few of those were by a 2/3 vote.

Of course NOM and the other participants at LetNHVote are seeking to spin this as a victory. They simply don’t count the towns in which the motion was tabled or in which the deliberative sessions killed the effort, and claim that of the towns in which the residents did decide to vote, they won a majority.

But their claims ring a little hollow. It’s a bit like celebrating because the people inside the ice cream parlor voted that they like ice cream.

And for some reason, Maggie’s chortling has turned to silence.

NOM funds DC Candidate with questionable ethics

Rev. Anthony J. Motley is a protege of Marion Barry running for City Council against gay Council Member at Large David Catania.

In February, the CityPaper looked into some of Motley’s business practices with the city and found them to be curious. It seems that Barry was lining Motley’s pockets with city money and that Motley was responding by providing personal favors to Barry including the loan of a Mercedes.

He “personally received at least $54,000 from [fiscal 2009] earmark grant recipients”—earmarks all requested by Barry.
…
Under the terms of a settlement agreement with federal prosecutors in his long-running federal tax-fraud case, Barry has to fully report his income and spending to authorities on a monthly basis in order to determine how much of his income is seized in order to pay back taxes. If Barry were to include payments on a luxury vehicle, they could demand an adjustment to Barry’s repayment schedule.

The article continues with several other instances in which Motley’s behavior either crossed or skirted the line of legality. In fact, an investigation into improprieties in Barry’s earmarks found that Motley had forged documents and engaged in self-dealing in addition to using educational funds set up for poor children to pay for political “councils” which in turn paid him. All of which suggests that not only is Anthony Motley a political ally of Marion Barry, but he appears to share both Barry’s personal taste for power and privilege and his questionable ethics.

None of which matters to the National Organization for Marriage. There is no scoundrel too shady or wactivist too hateful to be endorsed, supported, and funded by NOM. All that matters is that Motley shares NOM’s opposition to marriage equality.

As of last June, Motley was not yet on board with NOM’s agenda. At that time he was singing a different song. (WaPo)

Motley said in an interview that there are divisions in the city that he wants to eliminate: geography and race but also one between ministers and the gay and lesbian community.

Motley said he pulled together a meeting between the two groups to talk about the legalization of gay marriage. Motley, who said he has supported domestic partnerships and other gay issues in the past, said he has not decided whether he supports legalizing same-sex nuptials. “I’m evolving on that,” he said. “I have not gotten to the point that I can say definitively.”

But since NOM has a check-book (and no accountability), Motley has now evolved a position and decided that he really likes divisions after all.

So it is no surprise that NOM is funding Motley. (MetroWeekly)

Motley has accepted two campaign contributions from NOM, and another from the Committee to Elect Delano Hunter. Hunter is running for a seat to represent Ward 5. He has also been supported by NOM.

”Obviously we’re interested in electing candidates that will support traditional marriage and allowing voters of D.C. the right to have their say on the issue,” Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, says. ”Rev. Motley does.”

Sadly, is is also no surprise that NOM seems to have broken the law to do so.

According to the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance (OCF), candidates seeking election for a City Council At-Large seat may accept no more than $1,000 from one organization or individual. But Motley’s campaign contribution listings on OCF’s official web site, shows that it accepted $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, PPC,” on January 29, and another $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, Inc.” on February 1.

Brown says the two contributions were a mistake and that only one should have been made.

Perhaps it was just a reporting error. Perhaps it was a mistake and NOM accidentally gave more than they intended. Perhaps it’s all innocent.

But why is it that every time National Organization for Marriage becomes involved in a campaign, there are questionable practices or laws ignored or broken?

Tom Campbell responds to “two peas in a pod” ad

Today the National Organization for Marriage released an ad attacking California GOP Senate candidate Tom Campbell. They said that his views on income taxes, gas taxes, and (gasp) gay marriage are no different from those of “liberal Barbera Boxer”.

Campbell’s team is crying, “No fair”

Campbell spokesman James Fisfis said the campaign is more upset that the ad compares Campbell to Boxer on taxes. He says the two are worlds apart on that issue.

Gotta love that answer.

NOM latches onto “Miss Beverly Hills”

Oh you saw coming, didn’t you? You just had to know that Maggie Gallagher would see the lovely Lauren Ashley, hear her opposition to marriage equality, and see an opportunity to create a new martyr. (Fox News)

And while the City of Beverly Hills is shunning the pageant princess, she has garnered strong support from the National Organization for Marriage.

“I’m not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage — after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally,” the organization’s president, Maggie Gallagher, told us. “But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8.”

Ah, such courage it took to fill out the paperwork, claim a city she doesn’t live in, call up a news reporter for a conservative network, and desperately beg for attention. Yeah, courage, un-huh.

But Maggie should be careful. The last time she latched onto a paragon of heterosexual-only virtue it turned out that she had her own sex tape. Who knows what this little delusional attention-starved girl has in her closet?

Where The Money To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage in DC Coming From?

Hint: None of it is coming from within Washington, D.C.. Rev. Harry Jackson’s three groups to wage three different ballot fights against DC’s new marriage equality law have raised a total of $199,000 so far. Of that, $102,192 came from Rev. Jackson’s MAryland-based High Impact Leadership Coalition. That sum is followed by $40,000 from Focus On the Family, $32,130 from the National Organization for Marriage, and $25,000 from the Family Research Council. None of the donations are from DC residents.

Prop 8 supporters fight to keep cameras out of the courtroom

Judge Vaughn Walker has decided that the Olson-Boies case to find Proposition 8 in violation of the US Constitution will be recorded and available on YouTube. Those defending the proposition and seeking to keep California from legally recognizing same-sex marriages are desperate that this not happen.

Their public argument is that video coverage would turn the case into a “media circus” and that they would be targets of retribution. In a fiery denunciation of the judge’s decision, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher raged:

On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled “The Price of Prop. 8,” which concluded that “supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”

To deliberately and needlessly expose these people to a new wave of publicity and attacks by televising the trial is outrageous.

And indeed one of the five official sponsors of Proposition 8 (whom I’ve never heard of) has requested to be removed from the case.

On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family’s safety. In his court filing, Tam’s lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.

Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.

But what Gallagher and Tam and the other supporters of Proposition 8 fail to mention is that they volunteered for this case. In fact, when Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown expressed no interest in defending the initiative, Tam petitioned the court requesting that he be allowed to do so.

And their concern that they be identified or targeted seems disingenuous. The proceedings are not going to occur in a secluded and private setting where the witnesses will be kept a secret. Every witness will be known and every testimony blogged about.

Tam certainly got more media attention from dropping out of the case than he would have if he’d just gone through with it.

And yet they are frantic that there be no video. The supporters of Prop 8 appealed the judge’s decision, but yesterday they were denied (SJ Merc)

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by Proposition 8 supporters to block the broadcast of the upcoming trial involving a challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban, refusing to stop a plan to post the proceedings on YouTube.

In a one-paragraph order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Proposition 8 campaign had not presented reason for “intervention by this court” in the broadcast issue.

But this wasn’t the end of their effort. They have now made an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking Justice Kennedy to block camera coverage. The Olson-Boies team has until noon on Sunday to respond (the case starts on Monday).

I do not believe Gallagher and the Prop 8 supporters’ public reasons for wishing to keep the trial from being recorded. I think that their true motivation is better understood from another argument they made. (Law.com)

Lawyers representing the Yes on 8 campaign objected to any broadcast beyond an overflow room in the San Francisco federal building, arguing that witnesses would be intimidated, or change their testimony. [emphasis added]

Change their testimony?

If their witnesses are telling the truth, wouldn’t their testimony be the same in either case?

It seems not. And here is why.

There is a record made of every word said at every trial. But this record generally is not readily accessible to the public. Words said, arguments made, all are lost to dusty volumes and forgotten.

Further, few people ever hear or read what any individual witness has to say. In a high profile trial, reporters will provide the gist of a testimony or paraphrase but the public doesn’t really hear or see

But a video recording of testimony makes their words accessible and permanent. There will be transcripts posted across the internet and for the rest of our lives there will be ready and immediate access to video of each witness making statements in support of banning gay Californians from marrying.

And clearly some of their witnesses are reluctant to testify publicly. They want to say words that the public will never hear and for which they will never be held accountable.

What is it that they don’t want the public to know? What are they reluctant to say in front of the voters who they claim to defend?

“Those who want to ban gay marriage spent millions of dollars to reach the public with misleading ads, rallies and news conferences during the campaign to pass Prop. 8. We are curious why they now fear the publicity they once craved,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “Apparently transparency is their enemy, but the people deserve to know exactly what it is they have to hide.”

I suspect that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, this case is a winner for us. This lawsuit will expose the intents, methods, and agenda of those who oppose equality. And video of their testimony will be, I believe, a very valuable tool to achieving equality.

And voter initiative battles will never be the same.

Gallagher and crew aren’t afraid that they will be targeted for hateful email or a vengeful grocery clerk squishing their tomatoes. They aren’t worried that their witness will have someone call them a bigot.

I think that what they truly fear is that what they have to say in court will look ugly and obscene when played on the news or in commercials during the next “protect marriage” battle.

More biblical illiteracy from NOM

In a recent statement, National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown once again illustrates that his familiarity with his own Christian religion and its holy texts are only marginally better than that of an atheist raised as a Buddhist in Abu Dhabi.

In responding to the vote for Marriage in the nation’s capital, he declared (for the umpteenth time) that NOM would continue its fight to oppose equality.

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.

A God-given right to vote for marriage? What kind of nonsense is that?

Scripture doesn’t endorse democracy, in fact quite the opposite. Kings are set up by God to rule the people and it is your duty to obey them.

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, I’ll bet Brian Brown really would support a “biblical model” for government. For all his endorsement of democracy, he seems pretty fond of theocracy.

NOM’s biblical Illiteracy

Brian Brown, the Executive Director of anti-gay activist group, National Organization for Marriage, recently sent out an email entitled Beating Down the Beatitudes in DC? in which he calls on recipients from around the nation to call and email District of Columbia officials and insist that gay people not be treated with equality and dignity in that city.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation\’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

Maine AG to NOM: “What Is There To Hide?”

As we reported a Federal Judge ruled against a lawsuit by the National Organization for Marriage claiming that Maine’s reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns are unconstitutional. In addition, the Judge ruled that Maine voters have a legitimate right to know how those campaigns are raising money and who’s behind it. That led Maine’s attorney general to challenge NOM to comply with the law before next week’s election.

Bolstered by the ruling, Maine’s attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week’s vote on Question 1.

“We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully,” said Attorney General Janet Mills. “The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn’t be clearer.

“I would hope that they would file before the election,” Mills said. “Why not? What is there to hide?”

What indeed?

Judge Declares NOM Not Above The Law

A federal judge has denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage for a temporary restraining order to suspend Maine’s campaign reporting requirements for ballot initiatives. NOM is currently footing nearly two-thirds of the total bill for Stand for Marriage Maine’s effort to pass Question 1. NOM complained that because they were not a Maine-based group, that they should be exempt from what they consider to be overbearing regulations for Political Action Committees.  The court disagreed (PDF: 187KB/32 pages):

Maine\’s compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate knows who is financially supporting the views expressed on a particular ballot question cannot be satisfied by one-time reporting. Instead, Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative. It will not do to say that a one-time disclosure in the week before the election is sufficient. That would not give the opposing viewpoint the opportunity to point out the source of the financing and seek to persuade the electorate that the source of support discounts the message.

This means that the Ethics Commission investigation will go forward, although the results will not likely be available before election day.

Carrie Sued for her… um… Enhancements

It appears that Carrie Prejean, the face of the anti-gay marriage movement, just can’t help but be a national joke.

I’m not saying that she’s a blithering idiot. I’m not calling her a dunce. I’m not suggesting that she lends credibility to every blond joke I’ve ever heard. I’m just pondering whether her handlers have properly considered the possible ramifications of yet another public reminder that Carrie’s life in the recent past does not exactly align with the frilly necked, long sleeved Carrie that value voters so adore.

Because, if so, then they should have done a better job vetting. Cuz, really, if you cater to the Jesus Loves a Virgin crowd, you probably don’t much benefit from headlines that scream:

Miss California Officials to Carrie Prejean: You Owe Us for Those Boobs!

It turns out that Carrie forgot – in her desire to support Biblical Marriage – that suing your former employer after they’ve invested money into the contract you breached can result in them suing you right back. (E Online)

K2 Productions, which directs the Miss California USA pageant, has countersued the litigious former beauty queen, requesting that she return the $5,200 it gave her for breast-augmentation surgery.

“Had [Prejean] heeded the guidance of the Gospel of John, who admonished only those who are without sin to cast stones in judgment, she might have avoided this legal battle,” the suit states.

You just gotta love a lawsuit that quotes Scripture at the Holier-Than-Thou crowd.

And it makes me wonder about the priorities of the National Organization for Marriage. If they are willing to shell out millions in advertising campaigns and huge sums in legal fees to fight public disclosure laws, couldn’t they kick out a few paltry thousands to keep Carrie’s boobs out of the press again?

Someone needs to tell Carrie, “Girl, you’re being used. When they no longer have a use for a blond bimbo victim of the evil gays, they will kick you to the curb and you will have no one at all to turn to.”

Maine’s “Yes” Side Claims LGBT Groups Contributed $5 Million to Defeat Question 1

This is amazing. Stand for Marriage Maine’s web page says this:

Your support will help us stand up to the vast network of wealthy homosexuals with seemingly unlimited resources from places like Hollywood, New York and Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.’s largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization has already pledged to spend as much as $5 million to try to defeat us.

Five million dollars from the Human Rights Campaign? Let’s review. According to campaign filings by both sides, Protect Maine Equality’s three largest donors are:

• Portland resident Donald Sussman, $500,000.
• The Human Rights Campaign, $220,000.
• The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, $140,000.

These three contributions altogether make up only 22% of Protect Maine Equality’s total budget. The rest has come from ordinary contributors like you.

Now let’s look at Stand for Marriage Maine. Their top three contributors are:

• National Organization for Marriage: $1.5 million.
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland: $550,000.
• Focus On the Family: $114,500.

Altogether, these three organizations alone have provided 83% of Stand for Marriage Maine\’s total budget.

Who’s trying to buy an election while pulling the wool over the eyes of Maine voters?

NOM Doubles Its Maine War Chest, Claims Special Rights

The Bangor Daily News reports that Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing to strip LGBT Mainers of their right to marry, has almost doubled its war chest in the past three weeks. They raised $1.4 million in October, bringing their total amount raised to $2.6 million, according to reports filed Friday with the Maine Ethics Commission. Guess where the money came from:

But $1.1 million of the $1.4 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine in October came from a single source: the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, the Washington, D.C., organization has bankrolled more than 60 percent of the campaign to ban same-sex marriages in Maine.

The No on 1 campaign, meanwhile, claims to have received contributions from more than 22,000 donors, compared to slightly more than 700 donors to the opposing camp.

This brings NOM’s total investment to $1.5 million, according to the Associated Press. By my calculations, that’s actually 58% of the total. But still, that’s pretty amazing. One out-of-state special interest group is trying to purchase an election, lock, stock and barrel.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has contributed a total of $550,000 to the “yes” campaign. Another $114,500 came from Focus On the Family. Together, these three groups alone account for 83% of Stand for Marriage Maine’s total budget.

And yet, despite the fact that the National Organization for Marriage is paying the lion’s share of the bill, they are in court demanding that they be held above Maine’s financial disclosure laws:

NOM\’s financial role in the Maine campaign will be discussed in federal court in Portland on Monday when a judge hears arguments in a complaint the group filed against the state.

Earlier this month, the Maine Ethics Commission voted 3-2 to investigate whether NOM was skirting campaign finance laws in order to avoid disclosing the identities of contributors. A complaint against NOM alleges the organization, which played a key role in overturning California\’s gay marriage law last November, funnels money to Stand for Marriage Maine while promising donors confidentiality.

NOM responded earlier this week by challenging the constitutionality of Maine\’s law requiring “ballot question committees” to file detailed campaign finance reports.

Meanwhile, campaign finance reports also show that Protect Maine Equality has raised more than $4 million so far. This includes $1.4 million raised in October, matching Stand for Marriage Maine’s fundraising from the same period. While the nearly 80% of the Yes side’s money during that period came from NOM, most of Protect Maine Equality’s fundraising came from individual donors during the same period.

Protect Maine Equality also reports some large donors, but nothing like the outright attempted purchase of an entire campaign by NOM. According to the Bangor Daily News, Portland resident Donald Sussman has contributed more than $500,000. The Human Rights Campaign kicked in $220,000 in donations and in-kind goods and services, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has contributed about $140,000 in funds, goods, and services.

Altogether, these three major donors make up only 22% of Protect Maine Equality’s total take. The rest, as they say, comes from people like you. Please donate today.