Box Turtle Bulletin

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.

Prop 8 Plaintiffs May Seek Reimbursement of Legal Fees

When a plaintiff brings a lawsuit before a court and wins, the plaintiff may ask the court to demand that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. So toward that end, Ted Olson and David Boies, who led the legal team that successfully argued in Federal District Court that California’s Prop 8 was unconstitutional, have filed papers indicating that they intend to ask that Alliance Defense Fund be ordered to cover their legal fees if the Ninth Circuit Court upholds the District Court’s decision. Estimates have those fees and costs running in the millions.

Imagine that. All of those people who donated to ADF to “protect marriage” may find that their money will actually go towards protecting marriage for everyone.

Mexican Catholic Church goes wackadoodle

The Roman Catholic Church in Mexico is going wackadoodle in a way seldom seen outside the circus (or some of the US’ more colorful anti-gay activists).

Last Sunday, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara accused the mayor of Mexico City of bribing the nation’s Supreme Court to find that Mexico City’s marriage equality law did not violate the constitution. Although the Supreme Court unanimously censured his statements, rather than distance themselves from such extremism the rest of the Church hierarchy jumped onboard for a ride on the Wackadoodle Train.

And now Cardinal Iniguez is claiming “proof”. (LA Times)

Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of Mexico City on Wednesday filed a civil suit claiming defamation against Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara, upping the ante in a high-profile political spat over gay marriage in Mexico that pits emboldened secular institutions against the country’s influential Roman Catholic clergy.
…
Church authorities were not backing down. Sandoval said Monday he would not retract his comments, and the archdiocese in Guadalajara later said it had proof of the allegations against the Supreme Court justices. Statements in support were issued from the archdiocese in Mexico City, while the Bishops’ Conference of Mexico also said it supports Sandoval.

Now, this is Mexico; anything is possible. But considering that the Bishops also declared same sex marriage to be worse than narcotrafficking, I’m not much inclined to think that they will be able to prove their case.

Three quarters of military could not care less about repealing DADT

It is becoming increasingly evident that the most significant disturbance that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell could have on the morale of the troops may well be the annoyance of having to fill out a survey. Because they certainly don’t seem to be in any rush to inform the Pentagon of their concerns, if they have any.

A few weeks ago, the military brass had to come out and make statements encouraging soldiers to fill out their surveys. It was very important so that they could “understand possible impacts associated by repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law.” And at that time, they only had a 10% response rate.

Well, the deadline has passed and not many responded to the DOD’s appeal. (Wendy City Times)

Department of Defense spokeswoman Cynthia Smith told CNN that just two days before the Aug. 15 deadline about 104,000 of the 400,000 100-question surveys had been returned.

This is about the expected response rate for a long survey. But this survey was special; it was the opportunity for military personnel to weigh in on a matter which was before Congress and which some Senators are convinced is of great importance to them.

And they really just couldn’t care less. Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said,

“From what we are hearing, troops have little interest in this survey and simply just don’t care about this policy change,” he said. “While the Department of Defense and Westat [ the research firm behind the survey ] are spinning the low response rate to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ survey as expected and sufficient, neither are disclosing the fact that the military leaders have had to put significant pressure on troops on multiple occasions to even get this level of response.”

Nicholson added, “Some commanders and senior leaders have even told subordinates that participation is mandatory. These occurrences further degrade the credibility of this survey’s methodology and violate ethical standards that prevent researchers from compelling respondents to participate in survey research.”

Although Congress is fretting over the horrible possibility of troop morale being decimated, the men and women of the military have looked at this whole conflict and answered. With a collective yawn.

Stupidest argument against marriage, maybe ever

Mario Almonte has an opinion piece on Huffington Post that takes my breath away. Oh, not in its brilliance, but in its astonishing lack of knowledge, factual accuracy, or logical conclusion. In fact, its mind-numbingly stupid.

Almonte argues that gay folks should just settle for civil unions and be happy. Okay, I understand the argument for civil unions (though I reject it). But Almonte seems to be under the impression that this astonishing revelation was his own epiphany and an amazing new idea which will just solve the problem.

In fact, he comes across as someone who woke up this morning and, for the very first time, considered the concept of same-sex marriage but didn’t let his lack of context, knowledge, or contemplation slow him down in sharing his new-found perspectives. Consider his opening sentence:

In the movement to legalize same-sex marriages in the United States, the religious right has proven a formidable and unwavering foe, and their victory in delaying the repeal of California’s Proposition 8 is persuasive evidence.

Really? Because I don’t know of any legal scholars – outside the wackadoodle variety – that think that the language of the Ninth Circuit’s stay is a victory for the religious right, much less persuasive evidence of their formidability. For heaven sake, man, it even questioned their ability to appeal.

Stupid? Kinda. But it really goes downhill from there. He looks over the past 30 years and sees the community as having “lost substantial ground” (hello?) and seems to honestly think that the religious right does not oppose civil unions (he seems never to have heard of Hawaii).

I can’t even begin to list all the ways in which Almonte fails. But I do recommend that you take a glance at this essay. It’s rare that you find something that is so far off the mark that it would be far easier to pick out the bits that are factually accurate, logically consistent, or historically aware than it would be to isolate those that are laughably wrong.

I suspect that Almonte sees himself as the wise benevolent counselor. But, Lordy this guy comes across as stupid.

Hasselbeck clears up misconception on marriage

In an interview with Adam Buckman posted on Fancast, The View co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck clears up some misconceptions about her views as the conservative on the panel:

What are some common misperceptions about you?

Oh, gosh, there are so many… I am not ultra-ultra-conservative on every issue. I actually support gay marriage.

That may be an opinion that would surprise people.

I think the gay marriage thing would definitely surprise people. I mean, for some people, it will surprise them to the point that they won’t want to hear it. “No, that can’t be, I really want to have this sort of idea of her in my head,” so I sort of rain on their parade there. I am a person that does believe that life begins at conception, but I also don’t believe that the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. So I’m torn there in terms of supporting laws [for or against abortion]. I always say I would rather change a heart than a law. I think it has to start there. Always trying to mandate, mandate, mandate this or that is not the way that I believe this country should run.

“Conservative” is a label people plaster on this person or that one. Is it more complicated than that when we’re talking about you?

I tend to be more of a federalist than anything else, and I do think there’s more of an independent streak in me that I just get genetically from my parents. But on many issues, sure, I guess I would be classified … as conservative. But like I mentioned before, there’s so many gray issues, be it abortion or gay marriage…. There’s a lot of discussion to be had and that’s why I love ‘The View’ and I wish that there was more focus on that in-between, gray area than [just] smacking a label on somebody. That’s the easy thing to do.

To be honest, I kinda suspected that.

Some Rumors of “Disappearing Ugandans” Are Not To Be Believed

There’s an Anglican blog out there that, for whatever reason, is rather highly regarded. It shouldn’t be. Colin Coward has posted a piece suggesting that the anonymous blogger GayUganda, who we all have come to know and love over the past few years, may have “disappeared” in advance of an Anglican African Bishops Conference.

If this were true, this would indeed be extremely distressing news. And given anti-gay attitudes in that part of the world, vigilance and caution are strongly warranted. But rest assured, Gug is alive and well, having updated his status on facebook just yesterday. I haven’t heard from him directly, but reliable sources tell me that he’s taking a break from blogging for a while.

I wanted to get this out there before another unfounded rumor went viral. We all know what happened the last time Coward posted something without having all the facts.

Laura Schlessinger and the First Amendment

After I posted the news of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s announcement that she was quitting her radio program at the end of the year over controversy over her usage of a racial epithet on her program last week, I thought some more about her tendency toward playing the victim. I gave a few examples from rather ancient history in that post, but I didn’t include her latest example. Last night, when she announced her retirement from radio on Larry King Live, she said:

SCHLESSINGER: You know, when I started in radio, if you said something somebody didn’t agree with and they didn’t like, they argued with you. Now, they try to silence you. They try to wipe out your ability to earn a living and to have your job. They go after affiliates. They send threats to sponsors.

KING: That’s their right, too.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, but I don’t hatch the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don’t want to debate. They want to eliminate.

So, that’s why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset.

I think Schlessinger has a rather odd view of the First Amendment. It only says that the government will not infringe on anyone’s right to say whatever they want to say. As we’ve pointed out many times, that provision protects some egregiously racist speech, much much worse than anything Schlessinger has ever said or written. And their rights have been protected in the courts as hers would be.

But as anyone with a passing familiarity with the First Amendment knows, that right doesn’t extend to private platforms. Any broadcaster or editor is perfectly free to bar any opinion, and they can use any arbitrary or inconsistent whim they wish to apply. The First Amendment does not prohibit that in the least. Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Schlessinger’s program, is free drop her program anytime they want, and they can do so for any reason as long as it is in accordance with their contract with her.

But that’s not what’s happening. It’s Schlessinger who’s walking away, not Talk Radio Network. Nor is Clear Channel Communications refusing to handle her satellite distribution and advertising sales. The decision to end Schlessinger’s program, according to her own admission to Larry King last night, is entirely her own.

Schlessinger prides herself on her calling-’em-as-she-sees-em aggressive style. To her, this brand of honesty is the essence of character. But she’s clearly not exhibiting it here, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s just another instance of a longstanding pattern. When her short-lived 2000 television talk show fell apart over low ratings and controversy over staff members posing as fake guests, she blamed gay activists for silencing her. Fast forward a decade, and she’s ending her radio show of her own volition and claims that someone — I don’t know who — is silencing her. But that’s not true. She’s only going away because people are criticizing her, and she seems to think the First Amendment ought to somehow make her immune from that. She’s wrong. Criticism is part of the essence of the First Amendment, not its enemy.

Ironically, one of Dr. Laura’s books is titled Stop Whining, Start Living.  That’s rich because being tough-talking and thin-skinned is a really bad combination. She might consider that as the basis for an eleventh stupid thing people do to mess up their lives.

Schadenfreude Alert: Liberty Counsel STILL Blames ADF For Prop 8 Decision

Almost immediately after U.S. Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down his decision declaring California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Matt Staver’s Liberty Counsel, which is closely aligned with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, blamed the Alliance Defense Fund for losing the case. As I said earlier, you can tell Staver was furious because they didn’t get around to blaming it on judicial activism until the final paragraph of their statement. Now, they’ve taken their cat fight to the Canadian Catholic LifeSiteNews:

According to Staver, the ADF “basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on.”

The ADF wished to stipulate, he said, that counseling some homosexuals to change could be harmful, that homosexual partners form long and lasting relationships, and that homosexuality does not impair any area of life. Liberty Counsel was not willing to do so.

Regardless of the reason that the ADF opposed Liberty Counsel’s entrance, the attitude that the ADF wished to project towards the court was reflected in the witnesses they planned on calling: at least three seemed to think that homosexuality, in itself, was perfectly fine.

Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson had been slated to testify before the court for the proponents of Proposition 8, but they were both withdrawn before they did so. Advocates of same-sex “marriage,” however, used Young’s and Nathanson’s videotaped depositions to help bolster their own arguments.

That last point actually bolsters ADF’s objections to having Liberty Counsel as co-defendants for Prop 8. Given that the plaintiffs were so successful in citing the Liberty Counsel’s own favored tactic so well to bolster their arguments against Prop 8, it’s almost a shame that Liberty Counsel was not allowed to intervene.

Dr. Laura Announces End To Her Radio Program

One week after enduring mounting criticism over using a racial epithet on her radio show, Laura Schlessinger announced that she will not renew her contract when it expires at the end of the year.

Schlessinger has a long history of anti-gay comments on her program, but to my knowledge I don’t think she ever used the word “faggot.” But according to a transcript posted at Media Matters, she repeated the word “nigger” eleven times to a black woman in an interracial relationship who called for advice on how to deal with insensitive comments and treatment from some of her in-laws. Schlessinger later apologized, but continues to blame the media for her woes.

In 2000, Schlessinger attempted to launch a television show based on her radio call-in advice program. That effort was met with calls for a boycott by LGBT groups who were angry over her strong anti-gay stance. She called homosexuality a “biological error” and a deviancy, compared gay parenting to pedophilia by saying that “a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys,” and blamed Matthew Shepard for his own murder. In the same year, Schlessinger wrote a forward to a book by controversial ex-gay “coach” Richard Cohen, who himself would later incurred a lifetime expulsion from the American Counseling Association for ethical violations.  Schlessinger endorsed his book, writing:

We live in a world in which the radical homosexual activists have, through aggressive lobbying and successful strategic initiatives successfully managed to infiltrate and effect change in government, public schools, churches, and even in our scientific institutes. Slowly and ever so surely, they are deconstructing the conventional family in order to accommodate their own personal desires and political goals. In the name of human rights and equality, the extremists in the homosexual community have altered the fundamental fabric of cultural and moral norms.

…Though they would like yo to believe otherwise, the homosexual activists do not concern themselves with the welfare of individuals. Theyare not dedicated to the betterment of society or the freedom of the people. What these zealots really want to do is shove everyone who believes differently than they into the closet and throw away the key. Like many other fringe extremist groups, they are concerned with furthering a political agenda and rebuilding the infrastructure of traditional morality.

…Richard Cogen is living, breathing, loving testimony to his own assertions that homosexuality can be cured and anyone willing to make that change has the right to do so. With intellect and care, he offers invaluable insight into the reasons for same-sex attractions and, for those willing to brave it, he illuminates a challenging journey from the isolation.

That’s right. Schlessinger thought Cohen was a man of intellect and care.

In more recent years, Schlessinger has evolved somewhat on her radio program. She no longer believes that ex-gay therapy is effective and she has provided a bit more of a gay-positive stance. Bbut she also has been trying to doctor her anti-gay past and continues to play the victim over the cancellation of her short-lived television career due to poor ratings — and controversy over a staff member appearing twice on her program as a “guest” on two consecutive days (on the second day, she appeared in different hair and makeup as a woman living with her boyfriend).

While her radio program will come to an end in another four months her so, she says she will continue to speak and write books. But undoubtedly, her influence will wane without her daily platform. And so her career tapers down much as it began, as a tough-talking but thin-skinned and angry woman railing against the injustices of her imagination.

Malawian Man Claims To Have Grown A Vagina

The Nyasa Times has an article that somehow managed to catch my attention:

Jali Mateyu, 25, said he developed “strange flesh” two years ago but that it disappeared after he showed his first wife. …The man, who lives in the Chikhwawa district in southern Malawi, said the flesh reappeared in June this year and that his penis had “shrunk and later disappeared”.

He said he had been to herbalists who applied ointments and that now his male genitalia had reappeared alongside the female genitals. Mateyu, who is currently married to his third wife, said he believed his first wife’s mother bewitched him because he left her daughter for his second wife.

This is the same country that arrested, convicted and ultimately pardoned Stephen Mpnjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga following a traditional marriage ceremony. Chimbalanga identifies as a woman. She endured especially abusive treatment during the ordeal. Mateyu, on the other hand, has become something of a celebrity. Go figure.

Which Side Are You On?

Last week, I noted that Peter LaBarbera’s coming unglued over Ann Coulter’s scheduled appearance at GOProud might almost — almost — make me want to cheer for Coulter. Now LaBarbera’s going off on Glenn Beck for saying that same-sex marriage is not a threat to the country. LaBarbera counters that gay marriage will “destroy freedom.” Of course, the only freedom he’s really interested in is the freedom to force us to cower in the closet. That cause was lost 41 years ago.

Meanwhile, World Net Daily is also melting down over Coulter and GOProud. Coulter has been axed from WND’s “Taking America Back National Conference” to be held in Miami next month. Joseph Farah, WND’s editor, spoke to Coulter and said that she told him the only reason she’s speaking at GOProud is because she’s getting paid. Remember, this is coming from Farah so take it with a grain of salt, but he quotes Coulter as saying:

“I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)”

As I said last week, LaBarbera’s outrage over Coulter speaking at GOProud makes me almost want to cheer Coulter and GOProud, two entities that I have very little respect for otherwise. Same with Beck. So by the same token I have trouble knowing who to cheer for here as well. The whole “enemy of my enemy” thing can only carry you so far. Barely as far as it takes for me to write three paragraphs about it first thing in the morning and wonder if I’ve already spent too much time on this already.

Legal marriage may matter most when it’s over

Yes, I know that you and your beloved plan on being together until death do you part. And no doubt many of you will make it there. But some of you lovebirds will squabble over worm and want to fly in different directions, and when it comes to how to split the nestegg, it matters very very much whether the IRS recognizes your marriage.

Robert Wood, writing for Forbes, gives us a few examples.

In fact, the biggest tax issues often come up on the unraveling of a marriage. Whether a couple is heterosexual or gay, the tax aspects of unraveling a relationship are very different inside and outside marriage. You might be shocked how these tax rules work.
…
A divorcing couple can divvy up property tax free. Again, there’s no limit. So if you jointly bought a house, you can transfer your interest to your ex without tax.

Not married? In that case, you’ll likely face income or gift taxes. If you give your half of the house to your ex-partner and receive nothing in exchange, you’ve made a taxable gift.

Suppose you’re not feeling that generous and instead are deeding your half of the house to your ex in exchange for some of your ex-partner’s stock holdings? Then you both could be hit with income taxes.

I wish this information were more central to our arguments over equality. Most folks find it surprising when we point out that not only are we denied protections and rights by our government, but we pay far more taxes then they do for the few we get.

Who knows, perhaps those who so oppose our rights on “moral grounds” might find tax inequalities an argument they could consider. After all, it was in the context of paying taxes that some fellow once said, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s”

Mexican Catholic Archdiocese completely jumps the shark

You think Mexico’s drug cartels are a problem? Well you ain’t seen anything so bad as what’s really destroying the country: Teh Gehs!! (On-Top)

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico has called gay marriage worse than drug trafficking, Mexico daily El Universal reported.

Kidnapping, executions, intimidation, and the all-out war on the Mexican government? Pshaw! That’s nothing compared to Anita and Isabel tying the knot.

Something must be done! The Church must get involved and tell the people how to vote!

The church called for the ouster of the government of Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.

“He and his government have created laws destructive to the family, the laws do worse damage than drug trafficking,” Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Archdiocese, said. “Marcelo Ebrard and his party, the PRD, are determined to destroy us.”
…
Last Sunday, the cardinal of Guadalajara, Juan Sandoval Iniguez, accused Ebrard of bribing the court to rule in the city’s favor.

Speaking in Aguascalientes, Iniguez said the court would not reach such an “absurd” conclusion unless it was motivated by a large sum of money.

“I do not know of any of you who would like to be adopted by a pair of lesbians or a pair of fags,” he said. “I think not.”

Bring back good ol’ fashioned morality. Bring back the old ways when life was simpler and everyone knew their place, and stayed in it. It’s the Real Catholic way.

German life partners get inheritance equality

Germany has allowed same-sex couples to register Life Partnerships since 2001. However, this recognition was significantly lower than that of married couples. In 2008 revisions were made to bring about greater equality. But a court has ruled that the inequalities in taxation of inheritance between 2001 and 2008 must be rectified. (AFP):

The judges said that although heterosexual marriage still enjoys a unique status under the German Basic Law, it was unconstitutional for couples who had made a long-term commitment — and a pledge to pay maintenance if they separated — to face bias in inheritance.

It set a deadline of December 31 for the parliament to produce new legislation to rectify the “unconstitutional” disadvantage for gay partners in the years 2001 to 2008.