Maryland Gov offers insight on marriage campaign

Marylanders for Marriage Equality held a briefing Monday with Governor Martin O’Malley on the state of the marriage equality race in Maryland.  Question 6, which is a yes vote for marriage, is polling favorably for marriage equality. The latest public polling putting the state at 54% in favor of marriage equality and 40% opposed.  The opposition, however, claims a much closer race.

On the call, Governor O’Malley and the campaign pointed to the three expected attacks from the opposition – all of which we’ve seen before.

1. Exploiting racial lines to trying to pit African American voters against gay rights
2. Creating uncertainty around the true meaning of the ballot language
3. Using the fear tactic that this means kids will be taught to be gay in school

Polling and Race

The racial dynamic has been one that the campaign, to date, has focused on quite extensively.  Last Friday, the campaign brought together several leading clergy from African American churches, including Al Sharpton for a press conference in support of Question 6.  Additionally, Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP, which is based in Maryland, has been a vocal supporter.

Among the most interesting pieces of this race is the impact that President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality had on the role of race in the campaign.  According to a PPP poll, before Obama came out for marriage, African American voters opposed the freedom to marry 56% to 39%.  Over a two-month span that included the Obama announcement, the polls switched to 55% for marriage equality to 36% opposed.  PPP concluded,

“While the media has been focused on what impact President Obama’s announcement will have on his own reelection prospects, the more important fallout may be the impact his position is having on public opinion about same-sex marriage itself. 

Maryland voters were already prepared to support marriage equality at the polls this fall even before President Obama’s announcement. But now it appears that passage will come by a much stronger margin.”

We know from NOM’s leaked strategy documents that they will target this community, but polling seems to indicate Obama may have undercut the likely success of such a strategy.  O'Malley also cited a benchmark of needing to win at least 40% of the African American vote to pass the initiative. 

Polling Among Republicans and Independents

The campaign reports that they have nearly twice the support among Republican voters that any earlier state has seen.  With 30% of Romney voters reporting that they support Question 6, Campaign Manager Josh Levin argues there has been promising support both among voters and prominent republicans in the state like Ken Mehlman, David Frum, and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, among others.

Independents are polling close to democrats, according to the campaign.

Ballot Language

The ballot initiative reads that Question 6,

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Governor O’Malley and the campaign believe that this language outlining the protections for religious organizations that oppose marriage equality undercuts opposition on the grounds of "religious liberty," and sees this as a benefit when voters walk into the voting booth.  His central message to voters in his advocacy has been that, “As a people, we can and must protect religious freedom and rights of individuals equally under the law.  No child’s home in Maryland should be protected to a lesser degree under the law.”

My only concern with this ballot language is that it, as has been done in most races before, seems to imply that civil marriage and religious freedoms are fundamentally at odds.  To me, it is important to also emphasize that religious liberty and freedom also extends to churches that seek to perform marriages between gay couples.  I think there is power in the message from clergy that seek to perform these marriages – something that the African American clergy hit on at the Friday press event and something that religious organizations have as a powerful tool.  The campaign also reports the support of several hundred clergy from an array of denominations and faiths.

Fundraising

The campaign says it will likely need another $2 million dollars to air the ads they’d like to see between today and election day.  The race will focus in both the Baltimore media market and the DC media market, the latter being three to four times more expensive than Baltimore.

You can donate to the campaign here.

Read the rest of this post...

NOM admits Regnerus study was bogus

A gay blogger attended NOM's anti-gay student conference and got an earful about that Regnerus study that supposedly, but didn't, show that gay parents are bad for kids. It seems NOM is admitting that we were all correct, the study doesn't really look at that many real gay families.

Economist Douglas Allen, a speaker at NOM's conference: "[Regnerus] came up with some shocking results. What’s good about his study: so he wanted to use a large sample, and he tried but he still ended up with fairly small numbers given his definition. He wanted to use a wide range of hard measures, that’s very commendable. He has about forty different measures. And, I think what’s most commendable, he posted or has agreed to post, all of his data, all of his procedures, all of his work. That’s a huge leap forward in this literature. What’s not so good about it, well this is what he’s gotten beat up for. So he has a very wide definition of what it means to grow up in a same-sex household. 'I grew up in an opposite-sex household, but my dad had an affair with another man when I was twelve,' that counts as growing up in a same-sex household. A lot of people have said 'no, that counts as him growing up in a dysfunctional household.' And, you know, they’re probably right about that. So that’s the Achilles heel of this study, but he has been literally vilified in the blogosphere and all over the place. And of course, he admits this, he’s also unable to disentangle all of his effects. But he admits that. He says “look, I’m finding all these really seriously bad correlations.” You know, if you grew up in a same-sex household, by his definition, you are multiple times more likely to face sexual abuse, for example." [emphasis added]

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Dan Savage vs. the head of NOM

Dan Savage recently invited Brian Brown, the head of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), to dinner at his house for a conversation about Christianity and gays, moderated by the NYT religion reporter.

The dinner took place on August 15, last week, and it was just released. It's an hour long, but worth a watch. The first 15 minutes are Dan talking about why in fact we know the Bible has made mistakes before, such as advocating for slavery. Dan argues that if the Bible could get something as basic as slavery "wrong," then it's a certainty that it got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong.

Dan also hits Brown for the religious right's ongoing "bearing of false witness," particularly as it concerns linking gays to pedophilia, and how it impacts young gay kids who were thrown out of their homes because their parents worried they might molest their younger siblings.

Dan also points out - thank God, because I rarely see gay advocates mention this - that the religious right said we were a threat to the family because we wanted rampant sex without commitment, but now that gays want to marry and codify their love for each other, the religious right says our commitment is what endangers the family.

Can't have it both ways, haters.

Read the rest of this post...

NOM losing more corporate support

Bigotry is an ugly business.  It's also bad for business.  And American companies know that.  They also know that the type of consumer that chooses its breakfast cereal based on hate isn't the type of consumer that has much market power, or money, in the first place.  Religious right adherents aren't exactly known for their education or income level.  Corporations know that, and act accordingly. Read the rest of this post...

Dan Savage invites NOM bigot to dinner

Dan Savage, by me

Via Towleroad:

Said Brown earlier this month:

Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I'm here, you name the time and the place and let's see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It's easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let's pick on someone our own size!

I'm here, any time, any place you name, Dan Savage. You will find out out how venal and ridiculous your views of these things are if you dare to accept a challenge.

Savage tells Brown that he's inviting him to a dinner debate at his own home:

"Where? My dining room table. Place? Seattle, Washington. Here's the deal. We [could] fill a room with your screaming partisans and my screaming partisans and we can both fill a room with our respective peanut galleries and I think both of us have a little bit of grandstander in souls and we will work that and I think that will create more heat than light. And so what I'd like to do is challenge you to come to my house for dinner. Bring the wife. My husband will be there. and I will hire a video crew and we will videotape sort of an after dinner debate."

The venue, Savage explains, is part of a situation in which both are forced to be humane to one another.

"And the trick here is you have to acknowledge my humanity by accepting my hospitality and I have to acknowledge yours by extending my hospitality to you."

Read the rest of this post...

North Face, Nautica, Lee Jeans, Chamber of Commerce doing what religious right wants in NC

The religious right hate groups have asked North Face, Nautica, Lee Jeans and the Chamber of Commerce to stay neutral while gays get legislative bullied in North Carolina, and what do you know - the companies are doing just that, sitting back quietly while their customers are being written out of the state constitution. And who's in the lead? The hideously anti civil rights Chamber of Commerce.

Dull is the vice president for strategy and innovation at Greensboro-based VF Corp., the parent company of clothing brands including The North Face, Nautica and Lee jeans. His corporation and others in North Carolina's influential business establishment haven't taken a public stand on the amendment, a contrast to Starbucks and Microsoft, whose support helped sway lawmakers in Washington state before gay marriage was approved there in February.

North Carolina's chamber of commerce hasn't heard much from its members on the amendment and is staying neutral, CEO Lew Ebert said. Corporate neutrality is the aim of the National Organization for Marriage, a Washington, D.C., group fighting against gay marriage as North Carolina, Minnesota, Maryland and Maine head toward ballot measures this year. Washington state's gay marriage law could be put on hold by a referendum effort that would leave the decision to voters.

The statewide organization leading support of the amendment sent letters to the state and local chamber chapters. "We were requesting neutrality," said Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC.

You'll recall that the Chamber of Commerce also did the religious right's bidding in Tennessee when they got municipal gay and trans rights laws not just rescinded in that state, but got them banned permanently from ever coming up again. Read the rest of this post...

NOM hacked again, some think Anonymous may have a hand

Boy, if Anonymous is now taking on NOM... well, let me just say, wow (and yippee!).  It's not clear that Anonymous is behind the hack, it's just some conjecture by some who see clues in the latest hacked NOM tweets.  Remember, NOM was hacked the other day as well, and that time it was their Twitter account, Facebook page, and Web site - a pretty impressive triumvirate of hacker (which is why, likely, some suspect expert hackers (or whatever the correct term is) like Anonymous).  Here's the latest hack on Twitter (click the photos to see a larger, legible version):

Click for larger readable versions.

Click for larger readable versions. 

Read the rest of this post...

NOM Facebook, Web site, tweets hacked

Amanda Terkel at HuffPo has just confirmed that NOM was indeed hacked. So apparently they're not really sorry for trying to incite a race war. (Click images below to see more legible version.)

Twitter

Web site

Read the rest of this post...

NYT blasts NOM's "poisonous political approach"

From the New York Times:

When a light is shined into the dark corners of American politics, it’s never pleasant to see what scurries away. Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

They relate to a case filed over whether the group must disclose the donors that helped underwrite a 2009 ballot initiative that overturned the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage. The group uses its designation as a social welfare organization to avoid federal disclosure, but the memos dispel any notion that the claim has any legitimacy. National Organization for Marriage is a political group, through and through.

The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.

Appalling indeed. And, that first line is awesome. You can just imagine Maggie and Brian scurrying away.

The editorial is a brutal takedown of NOM. And, there's a message for the GOP candidates:

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have publicly aligned themselves with the group and signed its pledge to work aggressively from the White House against same-sex marriage.

Now that the group’s poisonous political approach is out in the open, Mr. Romney and the others should be racing to make clear their disapproval.

We detect no stampede.

Hat tip, Fred Karger, who filed the original complaint that led to the release of these documents. I suspect Fred isn't finished with NOM yet. But, when he is, NOM may well be finished. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to NOM "through an unusual channel"

NOM has been getting a lot of attention this week for its strategy of race-baiting. As Matt Browner Hamlin reported, the leading GOP candidates all signed the NOM pledge. Matt asked: Do the Republican candidates stand by NOM?

Turns out, Mitt did more. He donated $10,000 to NOM back in 2008 during the Prop. 8 campaign. Tried to hard it, but he's been busted. From Sam Stein:

In 2008, Mitt Romney's political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality.

While neither the donation nor Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage were a secret, the precise way in which he contributed to NOM remained under tight wraps until Friday. One of the only public comments on the matter came when the former Massachusetts governor's top spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told the Deseret News that Romney supported California's Proposition 8, which would reverse the state law allowing for same-sex marriage, and that he would be writing a check to NOM.

"The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California," Fehrnstrom said at the time.

But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney's Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM's public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.

Scott Wooledge has a post up at Huffington titled, How Much Racial Division and Hostility Did Mitt Romney Buy with His $10,000 Donation to NOM?" Scott used the WayBack machine to find the link to the October 28, 2008 Deseret News article that reported Romney's $10,000 donation to NOM.

Romney was being a dutiful Mormon. We all remember, all too well, that his church took the lead in funding Prop. 8.

And, it's a good question: How much racial division and hostility did Romney buy? Read the rest of this post...

Julian Bond on NOM's race-baiting strategy: "One of the most cynical things I've ever heard of"

Julian Bond was on CNN with Anderson Cooper last night. A longer clip of the interview can be viewed here. But, this clip is devastating for NOM. Cynical and scary:

The transcript is after the break.

Here's the transcript:

COOPER: A group that opposes same-sex marriage is undergoing fire after being forced to make public confidential strategy memos. Court officials in Maine ordered the National Organization For Marriage to disclose internal memos that outline the group's plans for fighting same-sex marriage initiatives. The documents do not mince words. One says -- quote -- "The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks, two key Democratic constituencies." Another memo says the group wants traditional marriage to become a -- quote -- "key badge of Latino identity."

The Human Rights Campaign, which was first to circulate the documents, condemn the tactics described in the memos as ethnically divisive. The head of the National Black Justice Organization also weighed in, saying, quote, "These documents expose NOM for what it really is, a hate group determined to use African-American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda and as mouthpieces to amplify that hatred."

The National Organization for Marriage is not backing down. This week it said it's proud of its, quote, "strong record on minority partnerships." It also said, quote, "Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right. Gay marriage is not a civil right."

Julian Bond is former chairman of the NAACP. He's been a long time defender for equality for all Americans. He was a key figure in the civil rights movement. I talked to him about the memos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: I want to read you from some of this internal memo from the National Organization for Marriage. They say, "The strategic goal of the project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks, two key Democratic constituencies."

They go on to say that they should recruit African-Americans to oppose gay marriage, to serve as spokespeople, and then provoke the gay marriage base into calling those spokespeople bigots, which would then drive a wedge. What do you make of this?

JULIAN BOND, FORMER CHAIRMAN, NAACP: It's the most -- one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of or seen spelled out in this way. Now the idea that these people are just pawns that can be played with, the black people who oppose gay marriage, and the black people who support gay marriage, just can be moved around like pieces on a chessboard, it's just scary.

COOPER: Scary?

BOND: Yes.

COOPER: They released a statement that said, quote, "Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right. Gay marriage is not a civil right." You see the push for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans as a civil rights movement?

BOND: Very much so.

COOPER: As an extension of the civil rights movement. BOND: Of course. It is exactly the same. It's a right that all Americans have, and no reason why gay and lesbian people ought not to have these rights, too. These are universal rights.

COOPER: But to those who say, look, this has nothing to do with civil rights, and there are many African-Americans who actually get offended by the comparison to the civil rights movement, among African-Americans.

BOND: We ought to be happy that other people, including gays and lesbians, and many other people have imitated the black movement for human rights. They've adopted our songs; we ought to be happy. They've adopted our slogans; we ought to be happy. They've adopted the way in which we went about it, in a nonviolent way, generally speaking. We ought to be proud of that, that we served as examples to others.

And when the others imitate what we did to gain their rights, we ought to be first in line to say, "Can I help you. You helped me. Can I help you?"

COOPER: When this memo went out -- it was 2009 -- polling showed that, among African-Americans, only 32 percent of African-Americans were in favor of same-sex marriage.

There's a recent NBC News/"Wall Street Journal" poll that showed 50 percent of African-Americans are now in favor of it. Do you feel like the tide of history is moving in this direction?

BOND: Absolutely. Absolutely. As more and more people think, "Gee, that guy who sits next to me in church, he's gay, and he seems to be OK. The guy who works next to me on the job, I think he's gay, and he seems to be OK. So I know all these people who are gay, and they're all right with me."

COOPER: Do you think some people who, African-Americans, who do not like the movement for equality being described as a civil rights movement, do you think they feel that that in -- somehow takes away from the struggle that African-Americans...

BOND: Yes, I think there's a -- wrongly so. Wrongly so. But I -- if they knew that Brian Ruskin (ph), a gay man, was the guy who put together the March on Washington, and it wouldn't have been the success it was, had it not been for him, I think they'd feel differently about it.

If they knew that throughout the history of the black struggle for civil rights, black and white and Asian and Latino gay people and lesbians participated and sacrificed alongside their black brothers and sisters, I think they'd feel differently about it.

Because this is not -- we don't have a patent on rights in this country. Black people don't have a patent on fighting for civil rights. This is something all Americans want to do and should do. And we ought to be proud that others have imitated us. COOPER: It's interesting to me that in the past, you have not had a lot of straight people championing this cause, and yet you have, sometimes at great -- you've received a lot of criticism for it.

BOND: Yes, I have. But I think, you know, I served in the civil right movements beside black people and white people, and gay people and lesbian people, and I often thought to myself, these people are helping me. Can I help them? Shouldn't I help them?

And when the gay movement, which is an old movement in this country, became more and more prominent, and it became something that people like myself, straight people, could join in and participate, I was eager to play whatever part I could. Because this is something, I think, important to all of us. I don't care if you're gay or straight. This is something you ought to be concerned about.

COOPER: Just on another topic, I'd just like to get your thought on the shooting of Trayvon Martin. What is your impression of what happened and of the debate that's...

BOND: I can only go by what I read in the papers or see on TV, that what seemed to happen is this police wannabe followed him, against the orders of the police, got out of his car, confronted him in some way. We don't know what happened then.

But we do know that Martin is dead. He's shot in the chest. He's killed. And I can't imagine what he might have done or could have done that would make that happen, that would prompt that. That would make that excusable.

COOPER: Julian Bond, thanks for being on.

BOND: Thank you.

Read the rest of this post...

NOM gets defensive over leak of secret docs showing plan to incite race war

What if you threw a race war and nobody came? Read the rest of this post...

Reuters weighs in on NOM's plan to incite a race war

Reuters:

A confidential memo saying the best way to fight same-sex marriage is to drive "a wedge between gays and blacks" and manipulate Latinos drew criticism on Wednesday in the weeks ahead of a vote to ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

The memo written by the National Organization for Marriage was made public late Monday as part of a lawsuit in Maine, where voters will consider a November referendum to legalize gay
marriage.

The previously confidential memo outlined a number of strategies aimed at increasing opposition to gay marriage among Latinos and blacks as a way of undermining the argument that gay
rights are equivalent to civil rights.

"It's really quite appalling that they would try to divide portions of the country along racial lines," said Stuart Campbell, executive director of Equality North Carolina, a group
leading opposition to a May 8 referendum on whether to change the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Read the rest of this post...

UPDATED -- MSNBC: "This empty studio chair was supposed to hold Maggie Gallagher"

UPDATE: Turns out Maggie was ready to defend her race-baiting on MSNBC. Via this tweet from Thomas Roberts:

@ThomasARoberts
MYSTERY solved... @maggiemarriage was in a studio ready for our #nom interview it was just the wrong studio booked imp… http://say.ly/zrk1Enl

Yes, ever ready to defend hate and bigotry. That's the Maggie we know.
____________________

Maggie Gallagher bailed on MSNBC this morning.

Jeremy Hooper has a photo of the empty set. Joe.My.God has the money quote from Thomas Roberts:

"This empty studio chair was supposed to hold Maggie Gallagher, former president and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. But as you can see she is missing in action, although we did confirm an hour ago that she would be in that studio. I would say, 'Hello Maggie,"

Coward. Maggie and NOM have been busted. Their hateful race-baiting scheme has been uncovered. No wonder she didn't show up. Even Maggie can't defend her call for a race war. Although, she can probably do that at FOX without being challenged. Read the rest of this post...

Secret NOM memo: Let's hire beautiful stupid people to win the culture war

We wrote late Monday night about the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) secret plan to incite a race war in order to stop gays from getting their civil rights. Well GLAAD noticed another part of the document that's almost laughable. In an effort to counter Hollywood's pro-gay influence on the culture, NOM wants to create a group of artists, athletes, writers and beauty queens who are anti-gay and - get this - stupid. Or as NOM calls them in the secret memo, "non-cognitive." That means stupid.

From the NOM memo, pages 19 and 20.

The next paragraph is about Carrie Prejean. You can't get any more non-cognitive than that.

So to recap: In order to win, NOM plans to manipulate black and Latino voters with very beautiful stupid people.

Any questions about what the religious right really thinks about the intelligence level of African-Americans and Latinos? Read the rest of this post...

AP covers NOM's secret plan to start a race war in America

NOM is now bragging about its outreach to the black community.  The organization put in writing its plans to destroy the first African-American President in part by creating a race war.  I wonder how the black community feels about that kind of "outreach." Read the rest of this post...

Julian Bond at NAACP criticizes NOM plan for race war

Via HRC, NAACP chair Julian Bond weighs in on NOM's secret plans to create a race war in America:

"NOM's underhanded attempts to divide will not succeed if Black Americans remember their own history of discrimination. Pitting bigotry's victims against other victims is reprehensible; the defenders of justice must stand together."

Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus, NAACP

Here's Julian Bond speaking at the National Equality March:

And here's part II of Bond's speech. Read the rest of this post...

Question for today: Who saw NOM's plan to start a race war and agreed to fund it? Mormons? Catholics?

Last night's breaking news about the explosive documents showing that NOM wanted to create a race war between gays and blacks is reverberating. You really don't see many organizations put in writing that they want to start "fanning the hostility" between Americans of different races. And NOM's language on Latinos and assimilation is also highly offensive. Zack Ford wrote a post on the "Top 10 Highlights From NOM’s Race-Wedging, Donor-Hiding, Victim-Playing Confidential Strategies."

This scandal creates a number of questions. For me, the first one is: Who saw NOM's plan to start a race war and agreed to fund it?

There are some likely suspects who have close ties to the anti-gay industry, led by NOM, including the Catholic Bishops, Mormons and the Knights of Columbus.  Someone needs to ask each of those groups if they saw this racist plan and if they funded it.

Sure explains why NOM wants to keeps its donors secret. But, I hope we get some answers. We better.

NOM must be stopped. The next chance to do that is on May 8th in North Carolina. Last month, Maggie Gallagher told Chris Hayes that marriage is on the ballot in that state. And, she wants another win. That can't happen. Our side can win -- if we have the resources. Maggie and Brian want to start a race war with their money. We want to achieve equality with ours. If you haven't contributed to the campaign defeat Amendment 1, do it now. Read the rest of this post...

Secret documents reveal NOM strategic goal "to drive wedge between gays and blacks"

It's not like we didn't think this was happening, but, wow, it's really ugly to see it in writing. As John notes on the main AMERICAblog home page, the religious right wanted to fan a race war, and they admitted it in writing.  Ben Smith at Buzzfeed calls the documents "explosive".

Earlier tonight, Alvin McEwen tipped me off about some court documents that revealed NOM's strategy. It's ugly. From Alvin:

The National Organization for Marriage's unsuccessful fight to skirt Maine's financial disclosure laws just backfired majorly on the group by revealing a distasteful part of its game plan to stop marriage equality.

According to a court document that was uploaded online, NOM specifically worked to drive a wedge between the black and gay community on the subject of marriage equality

Here's the key passage about gays and blacks (and there's also a strategy for Latinos):

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key...

They mean hostility between African-Americans and white gays.

The full document is below. (John links to a second confidential NOM document that is similar to this one, but also includes the "fanning the hostility" phrase. There seem to be at least three different documents.)

Jeremy Hooper and HRC's NOM Exposed are on top of this, too.

And, as for NOM and Latinos, read the post from Dr. Gary Segura, who runs Latino Decisions polling firm -- and was an expert witness in the Prop. 8 case and several DOMA cases. He noted:

For starters, Latinos are far more liberal on marriage equality than stereotypes might suggest.

This has the potential to be a very big story. Ben Smith at BuzzFeed has already picked up the story.
Nom Depo Exhibit 28 Read the rest of this post...

US Supreme Court declines to hear the NOM's appeal to keep donors secret

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court rejected the National Organization for Marriage's appeal of a US appeals court decision that upheld Maine's election laws that require organizations to disclose their donors. In 2009 NOM spent $1.8 million dollars to help repeal marriage equality in Maine. From Reuters:

"These provisions neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity. Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas," the appeals court ruled...

...[NOM] filed the lawsuit in 2009 and claimed the laws violated its constitutional free-speech and due process rights.

Maine defended its laws and said they were designed to inform voters about who is spending money to influence their votes. The federal government and most other states have similar requirements, it said.

Based on how hard they've fought against revealing their donors, I'm guessing we'll see a very small set of very big donors. If there is one thing voters in Maine don't like, it's the feeling that a few outside forces are trying to buy their elections. Read the rest of this post...