January 11, 2010

Today’s the Day

SAN FRANCISCO — January 11, 2010 — The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will begin Monday, January 11 with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Available info: please contact press@equalrightsfoundation.org

NOTE: POLICE OR COURTHOUSE CREDENTIALED MEDIA ONLY

• For courthouse access information, visit: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

• For information about remote viewing locations, visit: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/watch-prop-8-trial-live/

• Visit http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org for updates regarding potential broadcast of trial, photos, any available footage, court filings, live tweets from the courthouse and more.

• Plaintiff’s case is outlined at http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/plaintiffs-trial-brief/

Olson and Boies notably represented George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore respectively in the 2000 Supreme Court case that decided the presidency.

At trial, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, will weigh witness testimony, a multitude of documents and other evidence, and arguments presented by some of the nation’s most distinguished attorneys.

“This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the plaintiffs’ suit states.

According to the suit, Prop. 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.

• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

• Discriminates on the basis of gender.

• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

Olson and Boies will also point out the “crazy quilt” of separate, unequal and unconstitutional classifications of people that Prop. 8 has compelled the California government to create:

• Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights

• Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights

• Same-sex couples married between May and Nov. 2008 whose current marriages are recognized, but who will be unable to remarry if widowed or divorced

• Same-sex couples married in other states who may petition California for recognition.

The defendants have the burden of demonstrating that Prop. 8 is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest. Olson and Boies will demonstrate at trial, however, that the initiative fails to advance even a single legitimate interest. Tellingly, when asked by Chief Judge Walker at an Oct. 14 hearing to identify any harm to opposite-sex marriage that would result from marriage equality, the defendants’ attorney answered “I don’t know.”

The case against Prop. 8 has proceeded with uncommon speed toward trial. In an order issued after the first hearing in the case, Chief Judge Walker stated: “Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings … the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. … The just, speedy and inexpensive determination of these issues would appear to call for proceeding promptly to trial.”

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, noted that near the time when the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans with its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, a Gallup poll found that 73 percent of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage.

While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named defendants in their official capacities, along with other state and county officials, Prop. 8 is being defended in court by a prominent conservative organization, the Alliance Defense Fund. Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier filed a brief that did not dispute the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and called for swift action by the courts. Attorney General Brown, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, filed a brief agreeing with the plaintiffs’ position that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) are participating in the case as amici (friends of the court) in support of the plaintiffs. The City and County of San Francisco, led by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, are supporting the plaintiffs’ team as co-counsel, with a specific focus on the negative impact Prop. 8 has on government services and budgets. Herrera and Stewart led the legal battle toward the California Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s previous same-sex marriage ban.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board, which was announced January 9th, includes Julian Bond, Lt. Dan Choi, Margaret Hoover, Dolores Huerta, Cleve Jones, Stuart Milk, David Mixner, Hillary Rosen and Judy Shepard. For more information, see http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/american-foundation-for-equal-rights-names-advisory-board/.

Olson is a former U.S. Solicitor General and is widely regarded as one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional lawyers, and has argued 55 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies ranks as one of the leading trial lawyers of his generation, having secured landmark victories for clients in numerous areas of the law. This is the first time they have served alongside each other as co-counsel.

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier have been together for nine years and are the parents of four boys. Perry is Executive Director of First 5 California, a state agency that promotes education and health for children under five. She holds a BA from the University of California, Santa Cruz and an MSW from San Francisco State University. Stier is Information Technology Director for the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. She is originally from Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa. Perry and Stier first tried to marry in 2004, after the City of San Francisco began issuing licenses. They live in Berkeley, CA.

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo have been together for eight years. Katami is a fitness expert and business owner who graduated from Santa Clara University before receiving his graduate degree from UCLA. Zarrillo is the General Manager of a theater exhibition company. A native of New Jersey, Zarrillo graduated from Montclair State University. Having wanted to marry each other for more than two years, they considered options including traveling to other states for a “civil union,” but felt any alternative fell short of marriage. They live in Burbank, CA.

They have issued the following joint statement: “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”

Source: American Foundation for Equal Rights

Tweet This Post!

July 24, 2009

Alliance Defense Fund Claims Victory in Romanian Marriage Ban

I wonder how this will shake out — interfering with foreign governments — when it comes time for ADF’s head bigot Andy Pugno to start campaigning in earnest for the California Assembly? Ah, what am I saying? The Bigot District he wants to represent will probably give him a medal for beatin’ down them godless commies…

Romania Bans Same-Sex Marriage

The Alliance Defense Fund, a U.S.-based anti-gay group, claims to have guided Romania’s parliament to a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. …

More from Joe at the link.

Tweet This Post!

Told Ya They Wouldn’t Stop at Marriage: Now Anti-Gays Are After Wisconsin’s New DP Registry

No, it’s not enough that marriage equality is constitutionally banned in the Land of the Cheeseheads, nor even that Wisconsites who marry out-of-state can be fined and imprisoned when they return. Now:

The group Wisconsin Family Action (WFA), which supported passage of the anti-gay marriage amendment as the Family Research Institute, and the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) announced Thursday they would join forces to fight Governor Jim Doyle’s domestic partnership registry.

Of course, they’re using the existing state constitution as grounds…

Sheesh. You know, Wisconsin is going to go down in history as second only to Virginia on the Hate State list.

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

July 1, 2009

Olson-Boies Prop 8 Challenge Going to Trial

Big, big development today on the Proposition 8 front: In a nutshell, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ordered an evidentiary trial. What’s more, the evidence he wants covers a huge scope of information, ranging from the history of gay and lesbian discrimination, to whether or not California voters were motivated to vote for Prop 8 by anti-gay sentiment (which will entail examination of pro-Prop 8 ad media!).

I’ve skimmed today’s court order, and am very impressed (almost excited) by what I see; my initial reaction is that this is a very good development indeed, for a number of reasons.

I’ll get into the meat of it later; I want to read the order more thoroughly, pull the most pertinent excerpts, and get reactions from those far better versed in the law than I. So, for now, I’ll leave you with a link (courtesy of The Advocate) to the order itself. It’s only nine pages, and quite clear and straightforward: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Doc 76 (PDF)

Meanwhile, Judge Walker also granted various anti-gay groups, including the Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com, to act as intervenors (in other words, he’s allowing them to join the lawsuit and fight against Olson & Boies), which comes as no surprise to anyone.

Tweet This Post!

January 29, 2009

Federal Judge Knocks Back Prop 8 Hypocrites’ Demand for Special Anonymity

No, I’m still not back to blogging, and I owe you all a long post about that (which has been brewing in my head for more than a week), but I’d be unforgivably remiss not to share this bit of good news with you, which just broke about twenty minutes ago:

Nothing much to quote — the headline says it all.

Backstory:

Prop 8 Supporters Launch Attack on Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws
December 27, 2008

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors
January 8, 2009

Proposition 8 Finance Disclosure Lawsuit Getting A Lot of Attention (Good!)
January 9, 2009

Fred Karger: ProtectMarriage.com, NOM & Mormon Church Look for Sympathy in Federal Lawsuit
January 9, 2009

More on Prop 8 Down-Low Donors
January 9, 2009

Tweet This Post!

January 9, 2009

More on Prop 8 Down-Low Donors

Pensito Review:

In the Jim Crow era, Klansmen wore hoods to conceal their identities, not necessarily from their victims — African-Americans would have had little or no legal standing as witnesses against them — but from their white peers who may have supported segregation but could not countenance church bombings, lynchings and the Klan’s other terror tactics.

In a move that is shockingly reminiscent of Klansmen donning their white hoods, activists behind last year’s anti-gay Proposition 8 campaign are suing to overturn California campaign finance laws that require making public the names of donors to political causes. The objective of these professional hate-group organizers is to enable their donors to conceal their bigotry from colleagues and neighbors who don’t share their obsessive hatred of gays. …

Anti-gay activists should take note that Klansmen today no longer hide their racism under bedsheets. They proudly call themselves “white separatists,” and some, like David Duke, even appear on television wearing business suits. It’s puzzling why homophobes don’t feel a similar sort of pride. If they’re certain God is on their side, why does it matter if their neighbors and colleagues shun them because of their beliefs?

Happening Here, “Rules are for somebody else”:

They keep wanting to change the rules to fit their own needs.

Not content with working to un-marry the 18000 LGBT people who got married in California, supporters of Prop. 8 now want to get rid of campaign finance disclosure laws that make public the names of donors to campaigns. …

The Prop. 8 folks don’t like the rules — they guess they’ll try to change them to suit themselves. Isn’t that what they did in November?

Michael A. Jones at Change.org:

The ironic twist in all of this, of course, is that these same groups used campaign disclosure laws to target businesses and individuals who supported the No on 8 campaign - including calling for boycotts of Google and Apple and a host of other pro-LGBT businesses, and threatening one San Diego business to give a donation to the Yes on 8 campaign or face “consequences” (or, in other words, we can just call that extortion). …

Geoff Kors:

This lawsuit could not be more hypocritical. During the Proposition 8 campaign, the very same groups who filed this legal challenge sent menacing letters to Equality California’s donors, as well as corporations, labor unions, and individuals who stood up to discrimination and supported the No on 8 Campaign. Now they are calling themselves the victims. What’s more, these groups are arguing on the one hand that voter initiatives like Prop 8 should never be overturned by courts. On the other, they are asking a federal court to void a campaign reform law that was passed by voter initiative in California. They are asking that donations to Yes on 8 and only Yes on 8, even if illegal, be hidden from the public. This leads us to wonder what they have to hide?

Jim Keller:

The Pro-8 bigots are seeking anonymity. And yet anonymity is one of the things that Proposition 8 denies to gays and lesbians. You see, in several California counties, marriages can be private. That means no one except the couple can pull the vital record. You can be married, anonymously, for as long as you like if you’re heterosexual. You can marry someone of another race, someone of a very different age, marry someone above or below your social class, or any number of things that your peers may not approve of, without having to worry that they might find out. However, if a homosexual wants rights that are similar to (but not the same as) marriage, they must register as domestic partners. The domestic partner registry is a statewide, public database. In other words, we must out ourselves to get our basic rights. We have no anonymity anymore.

JeffAndWill.com:

I’d say no one deserves a death threat for the way they lead their life… yet this group is concerned about being able to contribute to discrimination anonymously. Across the country, LGBT people face all kinds of harassment for simply existing–everything from name calling to discrimination to the chance of being beaten and maybe killed. Yet, people come out every day because it’s important to live your live honestly, openly and to be counted for what you believe in.

It’s cowardly for the Prop 8 supporters to hide. If you’re going to believe in a cause (even if it’s something as ugly as discrimination and helping to perpetuate hate), stand up and be counted. If you aren’t willing to put up with the heat your convictions can cause, keep your mouth and your wallet shut and be content to just quietly vote for your pet cause rather than actively supporting it.

garychapelhill:

How about this for a reply: Nobody should have to worry about getting death threats for their choice of who they want to marry. I bet I could come up with a whole lot more examples of gay men and women being beaten, raped, and killed by so-called christians then the other way around. In fact I challenge the AP to come up with even ONE instance of a gay person committing violence against a prop 8 supporter.

But this is just typical propaganda. They want to turn the victim into the victimizer. …

Furthermore, I agree with Bopp that everyone has the right to the secrecy of their vote in this country. That does not, however, extend to contributions to campaigns. Everyone else in this country knows that when they contribute to a campaign that that information becomes public. When I google my name, the first thing that comes up is the donor tracker thing from Huff Post showing exactly how much I donated to Hillary Clinton this year. And while I may regret some of those donations now given her silence on the flagrant corruption and lies of the administration that she is now a part of, I knew going in that such information would be public. Those are the rules, right? Hell, ask Murphy at Puma Pac about people making hay out of your former contributions. Of course the smears against her were ludicrous, but she never said that her privacy had been violated because her previous donations had been made public. That’s because she is not a hypocrite. In fact, even your voting record is public (ask Caroline Kennedy), the only thing that is private is who, or what, you choose to vote for. …

And these [anti-gay bigots] are also the same people, who are SO afraid for their safety that they want special protection under the law, that have been screaming for years that including gays and lesbians under hate crime statutes would not only give gays special, unfair, protective status, it would violate the first amendment rights of every preacher in the land that opposes homosexuality. …

What a bunch of whining hypocrites. If you are going to use your money to support the denial of civil rights to Americans, you should at least have the guts to take it when people question your moral integrity, and in particular choose to not spend their money where it may support you. But these bigots want it both ways. They claim to be victims of discrimination in need of protection from the courts while at the same time wanting to continue their own discrimination against gays and lesbians without repercussions. And in the hypocrisy of all hypocrisies, it is this very discrimination that they want protected.

Queerty:

By donating money to fight Prop 8, these individuals were voluntarily adding their names to public records. They knew, before they signed a cheque, that their names were going to be added to a public tally of who donated to strip away the rights of Californians. And if they didn’t know? Perhaps they should’ve asked questions about where their money was going before following every demand of the Mormon Church. …

And here’s one of our favorite arguments from the lawsuit, according to the AP: “Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts.” Uh, yeah, that’s the point of making these records public. If you want to donate to a cause that marginalizes the queer community, you absolutely shouldn’t expect our dollars in your pocket.

If all that weren’t enough to keep these donor records public — and the names of those who donated money to fight Prop 8 should also remain public — here’s why it’s important to keep those names out there: Because it could limit the pro-Prop 8 organizers’ ability to raise funds to fight gay marriage again.

[Comment, Saturday:] If they really stood behind their beliefs wouldn’t they stick with them no matter how tough things got? It’s funny that as soon as something happens people are so quick to run in the opposite direction and hide.

Maybe they expected us to just drop to the ground and die instead of fight?

[Comment, PatrickD:] It’s typical Bully behavior. Attack folks then when they DARE to fight back, run to “Daddy” to complain of being the one picked on.

[Comment, Kenster999:] Sorry, but the law requires this type of disclosure. We can’t have “activist judges” overturning the law!

Back to Michael A. Jones for the final word:

So let’s all choose an ending to this post. (1) This lawsuit is nothing more than a horribly veiled attempt to eliminate transparency from the political process and squash the First Amendment. (2) This lawsuit is a sign that the Yes on 8 campaign is worried that the marriage equality movement has more powerful economic clout and knows how to use it to call out people on their discrimination. (3) This lawsuit proves that the Yes on 8 campaign is comprised of cowards who are either too afraid or too ashamed to put their John Hancocks next to their political contributions. (4) A combination of all three.

We vote #4: All of the above.

For those who came in late:

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors
January 8, 2009

Proposition 8 Finance Disclosure Lawsuit Getting A Lot of Attention (Good!)
January 9, 2009

Fred Karger: ProtectMarriage.com, NOM & Mormon Church Look for Sympathy in Federal Lawsuit
January 9, 2009

Tweet This Post!

Fred Karger: ProtectMarriage.com, NOM & Mormon Church Look for Sympathy in Federal Lawsuit

LOS ANGELES — January 8, 2009 — Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate today issued the following statement in response to the federal lawsuit filed by Protect Marriage and the National Organization for Marriage:

After taking away marriage equality from millions of Californians and millions more in the other 29 states where they have successfully passed laws banning same-sex marriage, the proponents of Proposition 8 are appealing for pity by filing a federal lawsuit today to keep the names of their contributors secret. They raised over $30 million dollars to take away marriage equality in California last year, and now want to hide the names of many of the over 60,000 contributors who gave all of those millions. This should never have been put on the ballot in the first place, but since that was their decision, they need to comply with all California reporting laws.

These very organizations who were major funders of Yes on Prop 8 like Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association ($500,000) and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family (($623,000) and their allies have been boycotting and blacklisting companies for decades who dared to support the rights of Gays and Lesbians. Companies have been targeted for advertising in gay publications, supporting gay business organizations, giving equal benefits to gay employees, allowing their facilities to be used for gay events, and in the case of Hallmark this past summer, just for making a same-sex greeting card. They have been trying to ruin companies big and small to stop equal rights and fairness.

Well, the Gay and Lesbian community and all of our friends and families are rightfully upset with the over 60,000 contributors to Yes on Prop 8 led by the Mormon Church which raised nearly $25 million from its members. It is completely understandable that we don’t want to spend our hard earned money at businesses whose ownership gave so enthusiastically to take our civil rights away. Our opponents have been trying to bury us for the past 16 years since Utah, led by the Mormon Church, became the first state in the country to ban same-sex marriage in 1993. Well, now we are fighting back and they aren’t too happy about it.

The federal government and nearly every state in the nation have political campaign reporting requirements, most of which were put into effect after the Watergate scandal in the mid 1970’s. Full disclosure is the law of the land and it keeps our political process honest.

For over 30 years, Gay and Lesbian donors have risked repercussions by contributing to fight anti-gay initiative campaigns. Our contributions have been used to identify us, but we have never asked that the law be changed to hide our identities.

These very contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign have spent months gloating about their enormous contributions to take away the rights of a minority and write discrimination into the California Constitution. And now they want to keep these names secret? This is despicable.

The Mormon Church is currently under investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for not reporting vast amounts of non-monetary contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign. The Salt Lake City based church ran out of state phone banks, established web sites, produced slick commercials, videos and satellite simulcasts, printed campaign materials, bussed in thousands of church members into California from Utah and other states and apparently failed to report these activities. Now the Mormon Church and their allies are hoping to keep secret all of their contributions; this is crazy.

We trust that the courts will see this frivolous law suit for what it is and dismiss it immediately.

Copy of lawsuit: www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ProtectMarriageComplaint.pdf

Related:

FPPC Agrees to Investigate Fred Karger’s Complaint Against Mormon Church
November 25, 2008

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors
January 8, 2009

Proposition 8 Finance Disclosure Lawsuit Getting A Lot of Attention (Good!)
January 9, 2009

Tweet This Post!

Proposition 8 Finance Disclosure Lawsuit Getting A Lot of Attention (Good!)

Backstory:

Prop 8 Supporters Launch Attack on Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws
December 27, 2008

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors
January 8, 2009

It’s good, very good, to see this story getting a lot of traction; the bigots need to be exposed not only for their bigotry, but for their cowardice, and for their supreme hypocrisy in attempting to use the very “activist judges” against whom they rail when things don’t go their way to — yes — “overturn the will of the people” and make things go their way.

We’re especially glad to see that the Associated Press has picked up on the story (even though we still won’t link to AP), which means it will be in hundreds of newspapers across the nation today.

One MSM article we will link to is in today’s Sacramento Bee, in which Fred Karger responds to some of Yes On 8’s ridiculous accusations:

The 26-page suit alleges that groups such as Californians Against Hate exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8.

The Southern California group made use of state databases to produce a so-called “Dishonor Roll” of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign.

But Fred Karger, the group’s founder, said it was “untrue” that it threatened and harassed supporters of the measure.

“We have strictly taken public information and posted it,” he said. “We have called boycotts against three companies — all major contributors. Other than that, it’s just public information.”

Karger called the lawsuit “a publicity stunt to gain sympathy” for supporters of Proposition 8.

“Campaign reporting has been in effect since 1974, and it keeps the system honest,” he said. “It’s something we support even though for 30 years gay people were harassed for making political contributions to fight discrimination.”

Of course, the story has hit the blogosphere, far and wide; below are links to just a few of the best takes (I won’t excerpt my wife’s short, to-the-point post, which deserves the full read for full impact), beginning with our favorite of the moment, from Popehat:

It’s Not Judicial Tyranny When We Do It

The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign relied heavily on the argument that the California Supreme Court engaged in “judicial tyranny” when it ruled that California marriage law violated the California Constitution to the extent that it prohibited same-sex marriage. Judicial tyranny, we are often told by some political groups, involves black-robed tyrants ignoring the Will of the People by striking down democratically enacted laws based on an analysis of constitutional rights.

Now the Yes on 8 campaign would like you to know that not all judicial tyranny is bad.

The Protect Marriage Coalition is now suing to overturn democratically enacted California law — specifically, the law that requires public disclosure of donors to California propositions — based on the theory that the law violates donors’ rights under First Amendment, because it leads to donors being harassed. … It’s just amusing that the people who have yelled the loudest about black-robed tyrants overturning the will of the people are now asking for exactly that. Unapologetic naked hypocrisy, like many human foibles, is funny. …

You didn’t hear any howls of outrage about “black-robed tyrants” from conservatives when the Supreme Court struck down a democratically enacted firearms statute in D.C. v. Heller and announced, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers individual rights. The “OMG judicial tyranny” crowd has a relationship with judicial review rather like Rush Limbaugh’s relationship with the ACLU — happy to shit on it 99% of the time, happy to accept its help when it comes riding in to support your noisy fat ass from government overreaching in a dope case.

Not to mention that some of the justifications offered by the Yes on Prop 8 litigants are rather pathetic:

For example, “Decl. of John Doe #4 (received email that read “I AM BOYCOTTING YOUR ORGANIZATION AS A RESULT OF YOUR SUPPORT OF PROP 8”)”

The choice of venue is also odd, in light of the Protect Marriage Coalition’s stated views on democratic integrity. Say what you want about the California Supreme Court, but it is made up of justices appointed by governors appointed by the people of California, subject to removal by the voters of California during reconfirmation elections, interpreting the California constitution — which in turn is enacted by democratic process in California. Yet the Protect Marriage folks have chosen to file in federal court in Sacramento, leaving the resolution of the matter to a judge appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and thereafter not facing any meaningful democratic impediment. Odd, really. It’s almost as if the Protect Marriage Coalition knows perfectly well that its rhetoric was bullshit.

And then there’s the substance. The Yes on 8 folks think it is terrible, terrible, that donors to Yes on 8 can be harassed or abused or oppressed or annoyed. Yet the Yes on 8 campaign itself sent letters to donors to No on 8 threatening them with public scrutiny if they didn’t cough up hush money…

Michael-In-Norfolk:

Personally, I believe that if someone is afraid to be identified with the causes and issues they support, then perhaps they ought not make a contribution. Not so with the Christianist/Mormon cry babies. Not only are they liars, but now we know that they are cowards as well who want to be able to anonymously take away the civil rights of other citizens. Such a system of anonymous donors is frightening and dangerous for democracy. No doubt they’d like to bring back courts of Star Chamber for gays and other minorities they don’t like as well.

Robert in Monterey:

One wonders if they’re going to use themselves as an example of why the laws should be tossed.

Further, in yet another act of hypocrisy, the very people claiming that courts should not overturn “the will of the voters” are suing to undo the outcome of the Political Reform Act of 1974 - which, you guessed it, was passed by voters that year as Proposition 9. …

[Comment, dkirk:] Listing all the levels of hypocracy in this maneuver is a daunting task. …

1) Going to court to overturn a ballot iniative when you just finished a campaign decrying a court’s overturning a ballot iniative.

2) Most of these folks support government reform like term limits, and yet they here oppose political reform designed to maked the process more open.

3) Using voter contributions to intimidate supporters of the other side is only bad when someone uses it AGAINST your supporters.

4) If you go to their campaign website, they also claim that the distribution of harrassing flyers is part of the grounds for invalidating campaign disclosure laws. I wonder how this goes along with their repeated campaigns against Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

5) ‘threats to ruin businesses’ are a part of their complaint as well. What about the Disney boycott, or the Ford boycott, etc?

Box Turtle Bulletin:

It’s amusing to note that they are specifically asking that only those who supported Proposition 8 (those holding “similar views”) be excused from obeying reporting requirements. One might almost forget that it was this campaign that sent extortion letters to opponents of the Proposition.

This may seem odd at first. After all, these records have been downloaded and stored by scores of gay individuals and groups. It would take little effort for them to become public knowledge again immediately. …

That’s an awful lot of expense and effort to go through on the off chance that the courts rule in their favor. Something makes me think that there is perhaps a bombshell hidden in the new reports, something that the campaign does not want to go public.

There’s plenty out there well worth reading today; we’ll link to more later.

Next, some flashbacks from our own pages here at the Newswire, which illustrate quite plainly that Proposition 8 supporters were attempting to hide their identities long before the official Yes On 8 camp filed suit. In retrospect, these incidents foretold the tale, whether anyone realized it or not:

In November, in a few short paragraphs buried within a much longer press release, Fred Karger made this characteristically eagle-eyed observation, which we titled, “CEOs Hiding Proposition 8 Donations Behind Wives’ Skirts?“:

More Reporting Questions on Yes on 8 Donors

One of our crack researchers discovered that several major contributors to Yes on 8 had put down “retired” or “homemaker” under occupation when in fact they appear to be employed. In many instances these contributors show up as owners or CEOs of their companies. Also, when checking more closely there is an unusually high number of homemakers making five- and six-figure contributions to Yes on 8. Could it be that their husbands did not want their names connected to the Yes on 8 campaign?

Steve Largent’s Wife Contributed $2,000 to Yes on 8

A good example of spouses contributing is the $2,000 contribution of Terry Largent. She is the wife of former Congressman and Seattle Seahawks football star, Steve Largent. Steve Largent is now the President & CEO of CTIA The Wireless Association. CTIA is the Washington, DC based international lobbying and trade association for all the major wireless phone companies. The Largents live in Arlington, Virginia, and Steve joined the Board of Directors of James Dobson?s Focus on the Family in 2003 after he left Congress.

Wife of Sharp Healthcare’s CEO Gave $2,350 to Yes on 8

Mike Murphy heads San Diego’s largest hospital and biggest employer. His wife Sandra gave four separate contributions to Yes on 8 between March 10 and October 24, 2008 totaling $2,350. She listed her occupation and employer as “none.” Maybe this was done in order to not draw any attention to her husband.

More recently, while researching Proposition 8 donors for the upcoming database (yes, I’m still working on it), I’ve been getting a kick out of the weird ways some donors attempted to hide their identities when filling out the donation form (I mean aside from listing their employer as “God”) such as one Mr. James Kaupanger who “fills in the blanks for both employer and occupation as: ‘WHY ARE YOU ASKING THIS?????????‘”

Meanwhile — and especially if the Prop 8 suit shows any promise of success whatsoever — expect to see similar actions in both Florida and Arizona, where the anti-gays have been trying to hide their donations to the anti-marriage amendments in those states:

Florida Amendment 2 Proponents: You’re All A Bunch of Spineless Chickens
October 22, 2008

Why is Arizona Allowing Proposition 102 Backers to Sidestep State Election Contribution Rules?
December 31, 2008

Tweet This Post!

January 8, 2009

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors

H/T to both H.R. and Chino!

There’s nothing I can say that Justin McLachlan doesn’t say better — although I’ll add, as I always do: The Anti-Gays can’t have it both ways — and if they don’t want anyone to know what flaming bigots they are, the soltuion is simple: Stop funding the hate movement.

Protectmarriage.com sues to hide
its campaign donor records

The ballot measure committee Protectmarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California have asked a federal court to force California to remove campaign donor records from public view (expunge them completely, actually).

They want the court to declare that the state’s campaign disclosure law — insomuch as it makes them file reports after the election is over and allows/requires those reports be publicly available after the election — violates the First Amendment.

They’ve also asked the court to prevent the state from requiring them to file upcoming reports, due on Jan. 31, that they say will reveal the names of previously undisclosed campaign donors and they want protection from filing reports that reveal the names of their treasurer and campaign officers, like registration documents.

The groups said in their complaint that “there is a reasonable probability that the Act’s compelled disclosure requirements will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals, similar to those already suffered by supporters of Proposition 8.” …

BTW, Protectmarriage.com is the same group that used public campaign disclosure records to threaten a San Diego business that donated to the “No on prop. 8″ before the campaign.

Which was only part of a larger blackmail scheme by Protectmarriage.com, attempting to extort money out of No On 8 contributors, lest they be painted as “in opposition to traditional marriage.”

More from Justin at the link, including the full complaint filed by the Alliance Defense Fund.

Here is today’s press release from the ADF itself — which would be laughable if these gay-haters weren’t resorting to the same old tired fearmongering-and-smear tactics:

ADF attorneys file suit to stop harassment of Calif. marriage amendment supporters

ProtectMarriage.com suit challenges campaign finance law’s requirement to publicly disclose identity and employer of donors giving as little as $100

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys together with ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com and the National Center for Marriage California to prevent harassment of citizens who gave as little as $100 to support Proposition 8. The lawsuit documents incidents of harassment and retaliation by opponents who have targeted Proposition 8 supporters after their identities and employers were made public by the state as required by California campaign finance law.

“Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems. No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes,” said James Bopp, Jr., lead attorney for the supporters of Proposition 8. “This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats.”

In November, over 7 million Californians approved Proposition 8. Under a California law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers, and other personal information listed on the Web site of the Secretary of State of California.

After Proposition 8 passed, people who did not support Proposition 8 used the list of names to go after people who supported Proposition 8. Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8.

“Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, who is serving as local counsel in the case. “Citizens shouldn’t have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance.”

The lawsuit challenges parts of California’s campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.

A copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, in the lawsuit ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ProtectMarriageComplaint.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Yeah? Where’s my right to “freely live out” my faith, you lying, hypocritical bigots?

Oh, and by the way, what’s with this “as little as $100″ crap? AFAIC, $100 is the same as $100,000.

Tweet This Post!

December 31, 2008

You Might Think We’d Put “The Battle Over Gay Marriage” At Number One, But No — AU’s Got the Top Ten Spot-On

The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State.

The monthly magazine, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.

Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”

After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.

1. The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.

2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.

3. The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.

4. The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.

5. Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.

6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.

7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.

8. Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.

9. Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.

10. The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Americans Unitied for Separation of Church and State Links: Homepage; Americans United (Press Center); Americans United (Action Center)

Tweet This Post!

November 21, 2008

New York is Going to Leave California in the Dust Even Before SSM is Legalized

NEW YORK — November 21, 1008 — Insurance companies must treat same-sex couples in New York who were legally married outside the State the same as any other validly married couples, irrespective of the sex of the spouses, Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo announced today in a bulletin to all Department licensees. The bulletin, known as a Circular Letter, says that same-sex couples who enter into valid marriages outside of New York must be treated as married people for the purposes of the New York Insurance Law, including for health insurance.

“Insurance is an essential part of our planning for daily life. We expect insurance companies to provide the same rights and benefits to all legally married couples, regardless of the sex of the spouses,” Dinallo said. “As Governor David Paterson has explained, this is consistent with the position the State historically has taken with respect to marriages conducted in jurisdictions outside of the State of New York.”

The Circular Letter is based on an opinion issued by the Department’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) after a careful legal review that began in early spring. Both consumers and industry triggered the review by asking the Department for guidance about the rights under the New York Insurance Law of same-sex couples whose marriages were legally performed in other jurisdictions. Those inquiries came shortly after an unanimous February 1, 2008 decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Martinez v. Monroe Community College, 50 A.D.3d 189, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (4th Dep’t 2008), leave to appeal denied, 10 N.Y. 3d 856 (2008), which held that a woman’s Canadian marriage to her same-sex partner is entitled to recognition in New York State, and that her partner therefore is entitled to the health care benefits offered to any other spouse.

On May 6, 2008, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused to hear an appeal from Monroe County. All lower courts in New York are bound to follow Martinez as controlling precedent.

Guided by Martinez and several decisions from lower New York courts, the OGC opinion concludes that same-sex couples in marriages legally performed outside of New York are entitled to the same rights under the Insurance Law as any other legally married couples. Further, an insurer’s refusal to extend health insurance or other coverage equally to all couples may constitute unfair discrimination and/or an unfair act or practice that could subject it to discipline imposed pursuant to the New York Insurance Law.

The Department’s legal determination covers all Department licensees, and encompasses virtually all insurance products, such as life, disability, long term care, and health insurance. Some employer self-funded group health insurance plans that are regulated by the federal government under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) may not be affected by today’s Circular Letter.

The Department’s interpretation of the Insurance Law also is consistent with a memorandum dated May 14, 2008 from the Counsel to Governor David A. Paterson, directing all state agencies to review their policy statements, regulations, and statutes to ensure that such laws are construed in a manner, consonant with Martinez, so as to encompass marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions.

The legality of that memorandum was upheld in a decision issued September 2, 2008 by Justice Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Bronx. Justice Billings dismissed a suit filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of various state lawmakers challenging Governor Paterson’s authority to issue the directive.

Consumers with questions about whether a group health plan is subject to State regulation should confer with their benefits administrators. Any consumer who believes he or she is being discriminated against by any insurer regulated by the State, or who has other insurance questions, may obtain assistance by calling the Insurance Department’s Consumer Services Hotline on business days between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at 1-800-342-3736, or by visiting the Department’s website at www.ins.state.ny.us.

Tweet This Post!

October 4, 2008

Americans United Asks IRS to Investigate Oklahoma Church That Endorsed McCain

WASHINGTON — October 3 — Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate an Oklahoma church whose pastor called for the election of Republican presidential candidate John McCain from the pulpit last Sunday.

The Rev. Dan Fisher, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Yukon, Oklahoma, trumpeted his endorsement in a press release issued by his church. The church release says, “After comparing and contrasting the candidates’ views with the Bible, Pastor Fisher unabashedly proclaimed that he believes Christians cannot, in good faith, vote for Barack Obama and must cast their votes in favor of John McCain.”

The October 1 press release was disseminated by e-mail to news outlets in the state.

The Oklahoma pulpit endorsement was conducted in conjunction with an organized Religious Right campaign to violate federal tax law.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.

Americans United says church intervention in partisan politics is illegal. The church-state watchdog group filed a complaint with the IRS on October 2 about the Oklahoma church’s action.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Trinity Baptist is a church, not a political action committee. Pastor Fisher has deliberately violated federal tax law, and his church ought to face appropriate penalties.

“The Religious Right desperately wants to mold fundamentalist congregations into a partisan juggernaut that controls all elections and ultimately the government itself,” Lynn continued. “That’s a frightening prospect in a pluralistic nation that safeguards freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths and none.”

This is the seventh church that Americans United has reported to the IRS for endorsing candidates as part of the ADF scheme.

Federal tax law states that non-profit groups holding 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status may not intervene in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The IRS has stated that it is cracking down on violations of the law.

Americans United sponsors Project Fair Play, a program that educates religious leaders about federal tax law governing political activity. As part of the program, flagrant electioneering violations by religious groups are reported to the IRS.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Related:

Americans United Commends Ohio Clergy for Opposing Pulpit Partisanship
September 8, 2008

AU: “Values Voter Summit” Tries to Push Churches Into Illegal Partisan Politicking
September 10, 2008

Alliance Defense Fund Proceeds With Lawsuit-Baiting Ploy; AU Vows to Report Violators to IRS
September 24, 2008

Supreme (Court) Hypocrisy: Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”
September 29, 2008

Tweet This Post!

September 29, 2008

Supreme (Court) Hypocrisy: Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”

Somebody explain something to me.

How come when gay people challenge the law by filing suit against the state, and the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the result is “overturning the will of the people” by “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench” …

…yet when the same people who level such charges challenge the law by breaking the law, and provoking the government to enforce the law as an excuse to file suit against the state, they’re making “a bold defense of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses”?

Maybe somebody at the Alliance Defense Fund can explain the difference to me, what with them bein’ such real smart, book-learned lawyer types and all.

While we wait for an answer (don’t hold your breath), let’s review yesterday’s attempt to overturn the will of the people through legislation from the bench…

Backstory: Alliance Defense Fund Proceeds With Lawsuit-Baiting Ploy; AU Vows to Report Violators to IRS, September 24, 2008

First, today’s press release from Americans United:

Americans United Urges IRS To Take Action Against Six Churches That Joined Pulpit-Politicking Scheme

Church-State Watchdog Group Criticizes Religious Right Lawyers For Luring Congregations Into Intentional Violation Of Federal Tax Law

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.

“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

Continued Lynn, “This is one of the most appalling Religious Right gambits I’ve ever seen. Church leaders are supposed to tend to Americans’ spiritual needs, not behave like partisan political hacks. I urge the IRS to act swiftly in these cases.”

Lynn also scored the ministers who took part in the ADF gambit.

“A pastor who knowingly violates federal tax law is setting a poor example for his or her congregation,” Lynn said. “Every pastor who took part in this stunt ought to be ashamed.”

The ADF overture has been roundly criticized. Many pastors refused to take part, arguing that America’s pulpits should not be politicized. In addition, three former IRS officials have filed a complaint asserting that the ADF has violated ethics standards governing tax attorneys by urging clients to violate the law.

The six churches reported to the IRS by Americans United today are:

Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”

Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”

Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”

Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”

First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad… According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”

New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Said AU’s Lynn, “When five of the six pastors choose to endorse John McCain, it’s hard not to see the ADF scheme as partisan in character.”

In complaint letters filed with the IRS, Americans United urged swift investigations of the churches and appropriate penalties.

Next, a few choice reactions:

Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

[“Pulpit Freedom Sunday”] was organized by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which sees the IRS rules as an infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech.

The rules are neither. Hice and other ministers have every right to preach politics from their pulpits. Nothing government does can or will stop them. However, they simply cannot endorse candidates AND maintain their tax-exempt status. That status is a special benefit conferred by government, and government has every right to set conditions on receipt of that benefit.

Furthermore, the IRS rules in question apply not just to churches but to a wide array of tax-exempt non-profit groups that perform religious, educational or charitable functions. Donations to such groups are tax-deductible; donations to political groups and candidates are not.

It is perfectly reasonable and fair for the IRS to enact rules to protect that distinction.

Religion scholar Martin E. Marty, Dallas Morning News:

Is this a real “pulpit freedom” issue? Some want to compare it to Martin Luther King and conscientious objectors and any who appeal to a “higher law.” But King and the objectors know that they are vulnerable to arrest or penalties, and have often paid them by sitting in jails. The Pulpit Freedom advocates appeal to no “higher law;” they simply want the freedom to break existing laws. They may serve some purpose by forcing more definition from IRS and church leadership, but most immediate purposes are to be straight-out political and to have the citizenry at large pay, indirectly, to subsidize their messages.

Waco Tribune-Herald:

A charade is being played … and a grandstand play. …

This is a fest for a few who are a little too full of political zeal. …

Of course, pastors can express political opinions. But they can’t use their institutions as political machines and expect them to be treated as tax-exempt.

Comment, Newsweek:

I always find it odd that so many conservative Christians don’t see the conflict between conservative politics and Biblical message. …

In the Gospels, we never find Christ trying to manipulate the state power of the Romans or influence its leaders, but instead He spoke to the hearts of the people, telling them that it was up to them to seek a change of heart and find their way to God. …

The strength of our faith comes from a choice we make after searching our hearts and seeking to draw closer to Christ. Wagging our fingers at the behavior of others and trying to pass laws to prevent them from behaving a certain way is Old Testament legalism, and Christ condemned the Pharisees pretty harshly for similar behavior.

Finally, it looks like the ADF is going to have a hard time arguing that pulpit politicking is okey-dokey with the American people; a Los Angeles Times poll which asks, “Should pastors be allowed to deliver political sermons and endorse presidential candidates?” is currently showing 81.4% say NO.

Tweet This Post!

September 24, 2008

Alliance Defense Fund Proceeds With Lawsuit-Baiting Ploy; AU Vows to Report Violators to IRS

In a nutshell, per WaPo: “Rather than wait for the IRS to investigate an alleged violation, the [Alliance Defense Fund] intends to create dozens of violations and take the U.S. government to court on First Amendment grounds.”

WASHINGTON — September 24 — Houses of worship that flagrantly violate federal tax law by taking part in a Religious Right-led effort to politicize America’s pulpits this Sunday will be promptly reported to the Internal Revenue Service, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group based in Arizona, is urging pastors to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit on Sept. 28, even though IRS regulations forbid tax-exempt groups from intervening in political campaigns. Reportedly, about 30 churches will participate.

“Taking part in this reckless stunt is a one-way ticket to loss of tax exemption,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “We’ll be watching, and pastors who violate the law can expect their churches to be reported to the IRS the first thing Monday morning.”

Since 1996, Americans United has sponsored Project Fair Play, an effort designed to educate religious leaders about the requirements of federal tax law. AU has filed complaints to the IRS about 85 houses of worship and religious non-profits. One church lost its tax exemption, some have been audited and others have received IRS warnings.

Lynn noted that tax exemption is a privilege and it comes with certain limitations.

“Houses of worship exist to enrich people’s spiritual lives, not act like political machines that issue marching orders to voters,” Lynn said. “They are tax-exempt because their work is religious and charitable, not political.”

Earlier this month, prominent Washington tax attorneys and former IRS officials Marcus Owens, Mort Caplin and Cono Namorato told the IRS that the ADF’s scheme is a “mass violation of federal tax law” and clearly violates the ethics rules governing practice before the IRS. They called for an IRS investigation and appropriate penalties for the ADF.

Meanwhile, Americans United is circulating a letter to churches advising religious leaders on the rules governing tax-exempt entities and politics. Churches should not participate in the ADF’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” scheme if they want to hold on to their tax exemption.

Many clergy have opposed the ADF’s plan for this Sunday.

Archbishop John C. Favalora of Miami released a statement indicating that none of his Catholic churches or priests will participate in the initiative.

The Rev. Eric Williams of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio, urged clergy all over America to give sermons in support of church-state separation and against partisan politics in houses of worship.

Americans United’s Web site, www.projectfairplay.org, educates pastors, laypeople and others about the requirements of federal tax law. It also serves as a place to report tax law violations to Americans United.

Added Lynn, “Pastors who are thinking of joining the ADF’s gambit still have time to change their minds and I urge them to do so.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

See also:

AU: “Values Voter Summit” Tries to Push Churches Into Illegal Partisan Politicking, September 10, 2008

We say:

Do whatever you want in your churches — endorse all the candidates you like — but you will not use the taxpayer’s dollar to do it.

This is not a First Amendment issue; no one is telling any church what it can or cannot preach. This is a matter of a bunch of radical religionists who want you, Mr. or Ms. Taxpayer, to keep paying for their upkeep, no matter how far they go to impose their religious beliefs on our government.

The only reason churches enjoy tax-exempt status is that they’re supposed to be using the money they would have paid in taxes for religious and other charitable purposes — not, as Barry Lynn so aptly puts it, to “act like political machines that issue marching orders to voters.”

Frankly, we hope this backfires on the ADF, and all churches lose all tax exemptions. We’re sick to death of making up for the taxes churches don’t pay, while those very churches enjoy the luxury — on our dollar — of brainwashing their followers into believing that anyone who doesn’t believe as they do is a demon infidel who must be converted, or eradicated.

So, go for it, ADF — with the U.S. economy in the toilet, this is the perfect time to bring attention to the fact that religious organizations exploiting their tax-exempt status — their privilege, their special rights — are nothing but welfare queens.

Congress could scrap any future plans to cut taxes for the poor and middle class, because we wouldn’t need that extra six hundred bucks for a credit card payment if churches were forced to pony up their share to pay for the burden of living in a country where they’re free to say anything they like.

And when the deep-pocketed Mormon and Catholic churches start complaining, we’ll suggest to Mr. Monson and Mr. Ratzinger that they can start auctioning off their golden temples and their priceless art collections.

After all, when you, Joe or Jane Blow, have to scrape together a payment to the IRS, what do you do? You don’t have vast holdings, so you sell your TV, sell your car, stop going to the movies, start buying the generic mac-and-cheese…

But do you ever think about how your sacrifice is directly supporting churches that want even more out of you? Do you think they give a damn that your kid had to go without new sneakers for gym? Nope — they’re just sitting back and enjoying the fruits of your labors, while planning how to drain the public coffers dry — the coffers that you, by law, are required to keep filling.

Tweet This Post!

September 10, 2008

AU: “Values Voter Summit” Tries to Push Churches Into Illegal Partisan Politicking

WASHINGTON — September 10, 2008 — Religious Right leaders are so determined to forge conservative churches into a partisan political machine that they are even willing to break federal law to do it, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The so-called “Values Voter Summit” takes place this weekend in Washington, D.C. Sponsored by Family Research Council Action (FRCA) and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the two-day event is designed to mobilize evangelical churches and church-goers in advance of the November elections.

But the Summit comes less than a week after three top former Internal Revenue Service officials filed a complaint with the IRS alleging unethical conduct by the ADF.

The ADF, the nation’s largest Religious Right legal group, is asking pastors to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit on Sept. 28 in violation of federal tax law.

Prominent Washington tax attorneys and former IRS officials Marcus Owens, Mort Caplin and Cono Namorato told the IRS on Monday that the ADF is “coordinating mass violation of federal tax law.” The three say this clearly violates the ethics rules governing practice before the IRS, and they called for an IRS investigation and appropriate penalties.

“There seems to be a real values void at the Values Voter Summit,” remarked the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “I long for the days when conservatives urged respect for the law, not flagrant violation of it.

“More and more Americans are telling pollsters they are tired of the politicization of religion,” Lynn continued. “The sponsors of the Values Voter Summit have yet to get that message.

“Summit organizers are deeply partisan, and they want to enlist America’s churches in their electioneering efforts,” Lynn concluded. “I believe religious leaders will reject reckless schemes that undercut the rule of law and the integrity of our houses of worship.”

Lynn said Americans United is responding to the FRCA-ADF overture in several ways.

The church-state watchdog group has launched a new Web site, www.projectfairplay.org, to educate pastors, laypeople and others about the requirements of federal tax law. The site also urges citizens to report violations. When the facts warrant, Americans United files complaints with the IRS about flagrant violations of tax law by religious groups.

Americans United is also circulating a letter to churches advising religious leaders about the rules governing tax-exempt entities and politics.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Tweet This Post!

September 9, 2008

Benkof’s Back — And Taking the Anti-Marriage Bigots to Task

Remember David Benkof? If not (or just for a refresher course), read “David Benkof: The Mysterious Disappearance of the Tragic Anti-Gay Gay” before you continue reading here.

All done? OK…

So, David has a new op/ed out — and is he ever (still) pissed at the Radical Religious Righties behind California’s anti-marriage equality initiative, Proposition 8.

Has David awakened from his own anti-gay coma? Nahhhhh, no such luck. David still doesn’t believe that any gay person — including himself — deserves the same right to marriage as straight folks; he’s mad because he figured out that the Christian fundamentalists behind Prop 8 don’t think too highly of Jews, and were using him as merely a “useful idiot” in their war on LGBT equality. (David, correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my read.)

Still, David appears to be a lot less hostile toward the LGBT community as a whole, and even grants LGBT families and transgender people some recognition as actual human beings.

I’m not about to give David Benkof an inch until he really wakes up, but there are signs that something reached him enough to cause a restless stir from deep within his coma. And that’s great — even if that something came in a roundabout way.

Following are just the bits pertinent to LGBTs; hit the link to see David lambaste the Right on guns, medical marijuana, and ethanol:

Discrimination. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I supported the man-woman marriage Proposition 8 in California - until I discovered the Proposition 8 campaign tolerates discrimination against Jews. ProtectMarriage.com’s legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund, has in effect a “No Jews Need Apply” policy for legal and even secretarial positions. They say they’re not a law firm, they’re a “ministry” and thus have a right to discriminate against Jews and other non-Christians. But even if that’s true, Proposition 8 had hundreds of law firms to choose from. The fact they chose one that refuses to hire a Jew like me is very disturbing. Interestingly, Jesus himself was a Jew, so when a group has a policy that would lead them to refuse to hire their own Messiah, you know something’s seriously wrong. …

Marriage. I have long opposed same-sex marriage. In fact, there are overwhelmingly good arguments for overturning same-sex marriage - based on the welfare of children, religious freedom, and preserving the monogamous ideal, for example. But the people defending man-woman marriage in California and elsewhere tend to use really dumb and sometimes offensive arguments. For example, the ProtectMarriage.com Web site, used to refer to a same-sex “family” (their quotes). Reasonable people can differ as to whether two men can form a “marriage,” but only a jerk would claim two lesbians and their baby are not a family. And do they really have to emphasize this attitude as part of their basic argument to fair-minded undecided voters? …

Transgender. I think it’s appropriate to treat transgender people as the sex they believe themselves to be - whether or not I believe that deep down they are really still their birth sex. I completely respect that some people disagree. But are these values more important than everything? For example, transgender women are at high risk for rape (and thus contracting HIV), because they are the only women in a violent, predatory, predominantly heterosexual male environment. Recently, I wrote the Family Research Council to encourage them to endorse my proposal to stop rapes and save lives by housing transgender women in women’s prisons. Their response? “To paraphrase our Policy team, housing ‘transgender women’ (that is, men) in a women’s prison would be conceding too much.” In Judaism, saving lives is more important than nearly everything. But apparently to the Family Research Council’s religio-political system, ideology is more important than preventing rape. Sigh.

You’re not quite there yet, David, but I have hope for you.

Tweet This Post!

September 8, 2008

Americans United Commends Ohio Clergy for Opposing Pulpit Partisanship

WASHINGTON — September 8 — Americans United for Separation of Church and State today commended a group of Ohio clergy for opposing pulpit-based electioneering and unveiled a new Web site designed to counter Religious Right propaganda about federal tax law.

The Rev. Eric Williams of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus is urging clergy all over America to give sermons on Sept. 21 in support of church-state separation and against partisan politics in houses of worship.

At a press conference in Columbus today, Williams and other religious leaders also called on the Internal Revenue Service to take action against the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) for encouraging churches to break the law and endorse candidates. The ADF, a Religious Right legal group based in Arizona, is urging pastors to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit on Sept. 28.

Federal tax law prohibits non-profit organizations, including houses of worship, from intervening in elections. Religious Right groups have long sought to turn churches into cogs in their political machine, and the ADF hopes to win court approval of pulpit politicking.

According to today’s Washington Post, Williams and other clergy are asking the IRS to sanction the ADF for encouraging pastors to break the law and calling for an investigation into possible violations of ethics rules.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, hailed the Ohio clergy group for its strong stand against the ADF.

“I am delighted to see clergy stand up for church-state separation,” Lynn said. “The vast majority of America’s religious leaders reject pulpit politicking, and I’m glad to see some of them speak out so clearly and forcefully.”

Continued Lynn, “Americans go to church for spiritual reasons, not to get a list of political endorsements. The Alliance Defense Fund ought to be ashamed of itself for attempting to drag churches into partisan politics.”

Americans United today announced the launch of a new Web site, http://www.projectfairplay.org/, that will educate religious leaders and other Americans about the proper role of religion in politics.

The “Project Fair Play” Web site contains a broad array of resources dealing with federal tax law provisions that bar pulpit politicking. It includes several links to IRS publications, educational materials for clergy and information about religious leaders’ stands on the topic.

Interested citizens can also use projectfairplay.org to report violations of the law to Americans United. Americans United has filed complaints with the IRS about flagrant examples of partisan politicking by religious groups.

Said AU’s Lynn, “The Religious Right persists in misleading clergy about federal tax law. Our new site will give religious leaders and other interested citizens accurate information on this important topic.”

Sapph says: The Alliance Defense Fund — the legal arm of Focus on the Family (the ADF was founded by FoTF’s James Dobson, and William Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ) — has been mentioned many times on The Lavender Newswire. For more on the ADF’s rabidly anti-gay shenanigans and other anti-American activities, see:

Ocean Grove Methodists Lose Tax-Exempt Status
September 21, 2007

Disgraceful! No “Blueboy,” or “On Our Backs”?!
September 22, 2007

Barf Alert: “In the Works: Homosexuals Nix Church Tax Exemptions”
September 24, 2007

California Marriage Equality Update (Rejoice: It’s All GOOD!)
June 4, 2008

Keep an Eye on Oregon’s Lemons v. Bradbury
July 10, 2008

AU: IRS Should Investigate Tennessee Church for Pulpit Politicking
August 7, 2008

Family Research Council Gearing Up for Next Anti-Gay HateFest
August 21, 2008

Great News from New York State: Court Drop-Kicks Out-of-State Agitators; SSMs Recognized
September 2, 2008

Tweet This Post!

September 2, 2008

Great News from New York State: Court Drop-Kicks Out-of-State Agitators; SSMs Recognized

NY Court Backs Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

NEW YORK (Reuters) — New York officials should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries where they are legal, even though New York State does not allow gay marriage, a state court judge ruled on Tuesday.

Justice Lucy Billings rejected arguments by the national Alliance Defense Fund that New York Gov. David Paterson overstepped his authority in May when he instructed officials to recognize same-sex marriages conducted outside New York.

“Nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring (couples) to abandon that solemnized commitment,” Billings wrote in her decision. …

The lawsuit against Paterson marks the fourth failed legal challenge of Paterson’s directive brought by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

Each of those cases are being appealed and Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Jim Campbell said the group plans to appeal Tuesday’s ruling. …

Paterson welcomed the ruling. “This decision is a wise and fair determination of the policy that holds valid same-sex marriages legally performed in other states,” he said in a statement. “The ruling is an important affirmation that New York is expected to recognize marriages legally performed in other states, unless existing laws prevent it. New York has no specific prohibition on recognition of same-sex marriages.” …

Expect mucho whining about “activist judges” — whining you wouldn’t hear if the gay-haters had won.

Tweet This Post!

August 21, 2008

Family Research Council Gearing Up for Next Anti-Gay HateFest

Surely (I know: Don’t call you “Shirley”), you’re more than aware of what the Family Research Council is: the biggest sack of lying gasbags in the entire anti-gay industry. (Sure it’s an industry; you think there’s not money to be made in promoting hate?)

But just in case you’re learning only now about the filthmongers who exist on this planet for no other purpose than to make our lives more difficult than necessary, here’s a crash course:

Right Wing Organizations: Family Research Council
People for the American Way

A Mighty Army
Southern Poverty Law Center

The Far Right in West Michigan: Family Research Council
Mediamouse.org

Family Research Council
RH Reality Check

Family Research Council
QRD

Box Turtle Bulletin FRC archives

Good As You FRC archives

Paul Cameron
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D.

Now, onto the upcoming hatefest, via a FRC press release:

FRC Action’s Values Voter Summit to Rally Activists Ahead of ‘08 Election

Lou Dobbs, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Mitt Romney, Dr. Bill Bennett and others confirmed to speak

WASHINGTON — August 21 — Only 60 days before voters choose the next President, FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, will host the third annual Values Voter Summit along with co-sponsors Focus on the Family Action, American Values, Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council. Last year’s event drew over 400 members of the media from every major media outlet in America and almost 2,600 people from 49 states and foreign nations.

Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Dr. Bill Bennett, Gov. Mitt Romney, Lou Dobbs, Lt. Gov Michael Steele, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Phyllis Schlafy, Star Parker, Michael Medved, and actor Stephen Baldwin. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have been invited but have not confirmed.

“This event is a call to action for voter participation, education and training and a rallying event for patriotic Americans who want to transform the political landscape on issues such as the sanctity of life and marriage, illegal immigration, religious freedom, health care, radical Islam, judicial activism, Hollywood’s influence, the media and much more,” said FRC Action President Tony Perkins.

According to the Cox News Service, the Values Voter Summit is an “event that may alter the contest” and will provide “clues to the enthusiasm for the McCain-led GOP ticket among Republican-leaning evangelicals.”

The Values Voter Summit 2008 will be held September 12-14 at the Hilton Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. The first day will be capped off with a concert by renowned Christian rock group Sonicflood. On Saturday evening, Chuck Colson will be honored at a gala dinner featuring the Grammy-nominated group Avalon as entertainment. An exhibit hall, radio row, book signings, and much more will be packed into this three-day conference.

The line-up reads like a Who’s Who in Hate. Oh, wait — did I say “like”?

Tweet This Post!

August 7, 2008

AU: IRS Should Investigate Tennessee Church for Pulpit Politicking

Watchdog Group’s Complaint Says Cornerstone Church Pastor Endorsed School Board Candidates From Pulpit

WASHINGTON — August 7 — The Internal Revenue Service should investigate a Tennessee church whose pastor endorsed three school board candidates from the pulpit, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In a complaint filed with the IRS today, Americans United asserts that Pastor Maury Davis of Cornerstone Church in Madison, Tennessee, violated federal tax law with comments during an Aug. 3 sermon.

According to the Nashville Tennessean, Davis had appeared on a local radio station July 25 to endorse the candidates (all of whom are members of his church) as a private citizen, which he may do. But during the sermon, he lauded the three, remarking, “They’re all from our church and we want you to get to know them and see what you can do to help them. I want to tell you that I am not allowed to promote a political candidate from the pulpit because of the IRS guidelines. … I’m allowed on a radio station to say I want you to vote for Tony Davis and Robby McGee and Charlie Taylor, but I’m not allowed to say that in our pulpit.”

According to the Tennessean, Tony Davis is the pastor’s brother, McGee is Cornerstone’s associate pastor and Taylor is a church member.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, urged the IRS to promptly investigate the matter.

“Tax-exempt groups cannot use their resources to support or oppose candidates for public office,” said Lynn. “When a church-paid pastor stands in the tax-exempt pulpit and urges the congregation to help certain candidates, that’s a clear violation. He is the top church official, and he is there in his official capacity.”

Lynn’s letter to the IRS expressed particular concern about the pastor’s flippant attitude toward federal tax law.

“I find the manner in which Davis issued this pulpit endorsement particularly offensive,” wrote Lynn. “He appears to be openly mocking the IRS rules. Furthermore, Davis’ statement indicates that he is clearly aware that the IRS does not permit tax-exempt houses of worship to engage in partisan politicking. He did so anyway, fully aware that he was violating the law.”

The IRS has repeatedly stated that it is stepping up enforcement of the laws barring partisan politicking by non-profit groups. In April, Exempt Organizations Director Lois G. Lerner noted that enforcement procedures have been placed in the hands of career IRS employees who are experts in the tax law in this area.

Americans United’s Lynn says he expects an increase in the number of tax law violations by religious groups this year. The Alliance Defense Fund and other Religious Right organizations are urging pastors to flout the IRS Code and engage in partisan electioneering from the pulpit.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Tweet This Post!

July 23, 2008

Who’s Behind Prop 8: Help Needed: Dennis/Clark Hollingsworth Connection

I have a most vexing “missing link” in the “mapping” project I’m putting together to expose the depths of the Radical Righties behind the Prop 8 push. I’m certain the connection is obvious, but all Teh Googling aside, I can’t find a completely reliable confirmation:

Is DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH related to CLARK HOLLINGSWORTH — and, if so, how? Father/son…?

Dennis Hollingsworth: Republican, California District 36; president of the Prop 22 Legal Defense Fund, which is one of the primary backers of California’s anti-marriage amendment, Proposition 8.

Wikipedia page

Clark Hollingsworth: Former COO, Family Life Ministries; ex-CPA, McGladrey & Pullen; currently on the board of the Alliance Defense Fund, the pro-Proposition 8 legal front.

ADF bio

Dennis Hollingsworth = Dennis Clark Hollingsworth.

It looks obvious, but I can’t pin down a definite connection.

Can you help me out here? I’ve already queried Media Matters, which seems to to know more about the ADF than most, but there’s no guarantee I’ll get an answer.

Even if you don’t know, you will be do me a GREAT favor if you would post this question on your own blog and/or discussion board/list where such a question would be appropriate.

In fact, you’ll be doing all LGBT Californians a great favor.

I need your help. (Anyone with LexisNexis access would be my angel.)

Tweet This Post!

July 22, 2008

Hey, Bolthouse! The Unions Have Our Back — And Now They’re On Yours.

Backstory: California’s Bolthouse Farms: Proudly Promoting Radical Homophobia Since 1915

From the Working Families Network (WFN), “a network of unions that utilize the Internet to get timely news updates and information to those interested in issues concerning America’s workers”:

Kick Bolthouse Farms Out Of Your Refrigerator

As reported by Alex Blaze on the Bilerico Project, William Bolthouse, founder and 43% owner of Bolthouse Farms, a farm in California that provides organic juices, lemonades, and smoothies to places like Whole Foods and other organic market places, has just recently given a donation of $100,000 to proponents of a campaign to strip California couples of the right to marry.

We know that many progressive people are concerned about what they put in their bodies, and we wanted to let you and your friends know that organic juice you maybe enjoying could be helping to strip the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people of the right to marry in California.

Now company spokespeople for Bolthouse Farms will iterate that they do not donate directly to any campaigns. But their owner, William Bolthouse, uses the profits from the sales of their organic drinks to fund his noxious political views. In addition to funding the initiative to strip Californians of their marriage rights, his foundation, the Bolthouse Foundation, is a major donor to the Alliance Defense Fund, the right’s response to the ACLU.

Now we know that corporate leaders can spend their money however they would like, but that doesn’t mean that we have to support them by using our hard earned dollars to purchase their products, at a price of our own rights.

Please take a moment and let Bolthouse Farms and their distributors know that you will no longer be purchasing their organic products, because even though they are organic, they come with some nasty side effects.

Speak out now! …

Tweet This Post!

July 10, 2008

Keep an Eye on Oregon’s Lemons v. Bradbury

The last good news we heard out of Oregon was in June, when the bigots up there abandoned efforts to strip gay Oregonians of both domestic partnerships and protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Now the rights of LGBTs in the Beaver State hinge in part on the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the case known as Lemons v. Bradbury, summarized by Basic Rights Oregon as “the lawsuit brought by out-of-state anti-equality groups seeking to revive last year’s failed referendum on Oregon’s domestic partnership law by forcing elections officials to change the way they treat signatures on citizen petitions.”

The Oregonian explains that the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund…

…is seeking to reverse a decision by Oregon elections officials who disqualified a referendum on Oregon’s new law giving many of the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who register for domestic partnerships. Officials said the petition was short of the number of voter signatures needed to get on the November ballot. …

Domestic partnership opponents gathered signatures for a referendum that would delay the law from going into effect and put it up for a public vote. Elections officials said opponents came up about 100 short of the required 55,000 signatures, but the group complained that valid signatures had been rejected and filed a federal lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman initially delayed the law from going into effect, but on Feb. 1 rejected the lawsuit.

By all accounts, including those of folks live-blogging yesterday’s hearing, it sounds to us like the three judges are indeed, as Basic Rights Oregon puts it, “keenly aware of the issues at stake in the case. They questioned the plaintiffs’ demands for special treatment in the signature verification process, and their comments suggested to us that they understood how a ruling in favor of our opponents could have far-reaching consequences on election laws in many other states besides Oregon.”

A decision may take up to 30 days; however, Oregon’s deadline for certifying ballot initiatives in August 2, so if the 9th Circuit wants to overturn the lower court’s ruling, they’ve got just over three weeks.

We have a hunch the good guys will win this one, and the 9th Circuit will uphold the dismissal.

What’s really surprising in this story is that I got all the way to the end of this post without referring to Austin Nimrocks as “Nimrod.” (Oops!)

Tweet This Post!

June 27, 2008

California’s Bolthouse Farms: Proudly Promoting Radical Homophobia Since 1915

Alex Blaze reported on Bolthouse Farms at Bilerico on June 5, 2008:

About Bolthouse Farms

William Bolthouse has just donated $100,000 dollars to the ballot initiative to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He owns 43% of Bolthouse Farms, a company famous for its juice.

A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.

Back in 2000, he donated $2000 to Bush’s presidential campaign and $1000 to GWB’s campaign in 2004.

He also donated $11,500 to Gary Bauer’s Campaign for Working Families in 2000 and $1000 to that organization in 2007. The PAC was designed to promote “traditional families in the political arena” through electing conservative candidates and financially supporting “pro-family ballot initiatives.”

In fact, William Bolthouse sees his business as a “platform for ministry.” So much so that he set up a foundation as a form of tithing the money he and his family made from the juice business.

The Bolthouse Foundation is also a major donor to the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of homophobic lawyers that try to get fundamentalism and homophobia through the courts. …

Plenty more at the link, including the Bolthouse Foundation’s mission statement, which has been altered (surprise, surprise!) since Blaze first wrote about it earlier this month.

Bolthouse’s mission statement before:

“The Bolthouse Foundation is a private family foundation funded by some of the former owners of Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.

“The purpose of The Bolthouse Foundation is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by supporting charitable and religious organizations whose ministry, goals, and operating principles are consistent with evangelical Christianity as described in The Bolthouse Foundation Statement of Faith.

“This Website is designed to provide information to qualified organizations interested in submitting a Grant Inquiry on an unsolicited basis.”

(Read archived Statement of Faith)

Bolthouse’s mission statement today:

” The purpose of The Bolthouse Foundation is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by supporting charitable and religious organizations whose ministry, goals, and operating principles are consistent with evangelical Christianity as described in The Bolthouse Foundation Statement of Faith.

“Mr. and Mrs. William J. Bolthouse sold their interest in Wm. Bolthouse Farms in late 2005, and since then The Bolthouse Foundation has reflected their giving decisions exclusively. The Bolthouse Foundation is a separate entity from Bolthouse Farms, and all funding decisions by The Bolthouse Foundation are made solely by the Foundation. No members of The Bolthouse Foundation have a financial interest in Bolthouse Farms, and The Bolthouse Foundation receives neither financial support nor benefits from the profits of Bolthouse Farms.

“This Website is designed to provide information to qualified organizations interested in submitting a Grant Inquiry on an unsolicited basis.”

Talk about trying to cover your butt, eh?

The same basic message was received in response to an email to Bolthouse Farms.

Now that you have the backstory, here’s Alex’s update today:

Update: Bolthouse Farms and the
Bolthouse Foundation are connected

…I found quite a bit of history on William Bolthouse, with donations to extreme right-wing organizations dating back all the way to at least 2000 when he was still in charge of the juice company and had a large stake in it. I also found out that the Bolthouse Foundation, founded and funded by the Bolthouse family, was giving to quite a few causes that I personally wouldn’t have supported or wanted to have inadvertently supported.

Quite a few of you have e-mailed the company looking for answers, and they’ve denied connection with the Bolthouse Foundation. Other people are planning direct actions around this, so I dug deeper to make sure I was correct. Let’s just say that it isn’t accurate to say that they’re completely separate organizations. …

One of the big questions that came up was How much stake does William Bolthouse currently have in the juice company?

His family owned most of the company before they were bought-out in 2005 by Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm. Before that, he had donated both to the Bush campaign and to the Campaign for Working Families, Gary Bauer’s extremist PAC. He had already co-founded the Bolthouse Foundation private charity that, in 2006, received all of its donations from the Bolthouse family. Bolthouse Foundation gave over $6 million to the National Christian Foundation, a massive conservative Christian funding arm that funnels money to smaller groups, both ministerial and political, that work to promote a fundamentalist Christian worldview.

Bolthouse Farms (the juice company), the Bolthouse Foundation (the private charity), and the National Christian Foundation all have mission statements that focus on doing God’s work as based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. …

The Bolthouse Farms spokesperson I called repeated [the assertion that “The foundation is a separate entity and is not connected to Bolthouse Farms in any way”], even though she was unsure she could provide evidence that William Bolthouse is not currently receiving money from the company. Bolthouse Farms did not provide any documentation requested by the time of publication.

The assertion that they’re not connected “in any way” is far from true, based on a couple things I found. …

Actually, based on a lot of things he found (excellent work, Alex!). Head to the link to read everything; in short:

The Foundation gets its money from William Bolthouse, and William Bolthouse’s philosophy, mission, even members of his family, still run the Company. Family members are on both sides of that aisle. The Foundation is looking out for the Company’s interests. The money that funds the Foundation originally came from the Company and may continue via other family member’s private donations that still work for the Company. They are not completely independent entities.

Blaze is being generous in his assessment here; it sounds more like the foundation and the company are joined at the hip.

So, what to do, what to do? We’re not going to advise anybody to boycott Bolthouse — we don’t want their high-priced lawyers on our butts — but, as Blaze concludes:

Personally, after finding out all of this, I’m not going to buy their products anymore. There’s just way too much baggage, and way too many alternatives on the market. What you do with the information is up to you.

We have no idea why any self-respecting LGBT person or any of our allies would continue to fund these most radical righties. All I know is that my household will never buy any of the following Bolthouse products again:

• Bolthouse 100% carrot juice
• Bolthouse 100% Valencia Orange juice
• Bolthouse Passion Fruit juice
• Vedge vegetable juice
• Bolthouse Mango Lemonade
• Bolthouse Prickly Pear Cactus Lemonade
• Bolthouse Cranberry Lemonade

Bolthouse Smoothies
• Blue Goodness
• Green Goodness
• Strawberry Banana
• Berry Boost
• C-Boost

• Perfectly Protein line, including Perfectly Protein Vanilla Chai, Pefectly Protein Mocha Cappuccino, and Perfectly Protein Hazelnut Latté

Bom Dia “antioxidant rich” juices
• Açaí Berry with Pomegranate
• Açaí Berry with Cacao
• Açaí Berry with Mangosteen
• Açaí Berry with Blueberry

• Bolthouse Yogurt Dressing

…and, of course, Bolthouse’s production staple, fresh carrots — especially after a 2006 botulism outbreak at Bolthouse put six people in the hospital, including two Canadians who were paralyzed.

Refrigeration troubles? Maybe. Or maybe it was a sign from an angry God.

Further reading:

The Legal Muscle Leading the Fight to End the Separation of Church and State
Washington Spectator, April 1, 2007

Going Courtin’: Religious Right Fat Cats Bankroll Alliance Defense Fund’s Legal Crusade
Americans United, April 3, 2007

Local carrot farmer donates $100,000 to fight gay marriage
Bakersfield.com, June 8, 2008

Action Alert from Pride at Work

Tweet This Post!

June 4, 2008

California Marriage Equality Update (Rejoice: It’s All GOOD!)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY Don’t get complacent! We still have a lot of work to do to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment in California! What You Can Do Right Now: • Visit EQCA to stay up to date on current developments, and volunteer your time (or money!). • Join the YouTube Marriage Equality Project. Even if you don’t make videos yourself, we need you! (Please tell your friends about it, and blog it!) • Wear the shirt or sport the bumper sticker: Our Marriage Vote gear is selling like mad — Buffy and I are wearing ours to San Francisco Pride! • Bookmark The Lavender Newswire and check back often for updates!

Today’s Big Story — and two most interesting op/eds — should put a big smile on your face today:

State Supreme Court won’t block start of same-sex marriages
The State Supreme Court has rejected a request to postpone last month’s decision overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group opposing gay marriage, joined with other opponents and asked the court to stay its decision until voters had a chance to cast their ballots on the matter again in November.

But by a 4-3 vote released Wednesday by the court, a rehearing was denied.

The order also said that the decision of the court on May 15 would become final on June 16 at 5 p.m., paving the way for gay marriages the following day at county offices throughout the state.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment’s sponsors predicted that chaos would ensue if couples could get married during the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The same four justices who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination denied the stay request. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted. …

“These petitions clearly sought to do something that went far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office represented the city in successfully suing to overturn California’s one man-one woman marriage laws. “It would be unprecedented to postpone constitutional rights based on a speculation of how a political scenario may or may not have played out.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s Albert R. Hunt calls the anti-gay crusaders on their bluff that the ruling will bring the rest of the haters to the polls in droves:

This time, gay marriage won’t galvanize voters
… In the United States, the Republican Party is certainly desperate; it’s in fundamentally worse shape in this presidential election than in probably any since Watergate.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that some conservatives want to capitalize on the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage to galvanize voters in the presidential election.

The court decision will deliver a generation of children “straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community,” warned James Dobson, the Christian evangelical leader. Dobson is calling on citizens in California and elsewhere to mount a protest.

That dog, as they say in the American South, won’t hunt this time.

The gay marriage issue, seized on by President George W. Bush’s former political guru, Karl Rove, may have been moderately helpful to Republicans in 2004; but it won’t distract voters from other concerns — like the economy, health care and the war in Iraq — in 2008.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, seems to have little interest in trying to take advantage of the ruling; he opposes gay marriage, yet has no inclination to demagogue the issue and knows this is a big-stakes, big-issues election, not one for focusing on peripheral matters.

He also knows it’s a long-term loser for Republicans. …

National surveys by groups like the Pew Research Center indicate that a growing number of voters support gay marriage. …

And the arguments against gay marriage are eroding. While critics say it destroys the institution of marriage, there’s no evidence of that. Massachusetts sanctioned gay marriages four years ago, and there have been no reported incidents of straight couples splitting because of it…

Far more insidious is the 50 percent divorce rate in the United States…

Moreover, the notion that gay marriage steps on the prerogatives of religion is nonsense. No court ruling or proposed statute would require any church, synagogue or temple to perform, or even recognize, such unions.

The charge that it creates a separate right for gays and lesbians is no more convincing than a similar claim in 1948, when a previous California high court knocked down the ban on interracial marriage; 19 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit. …

All right, the family values crowd says, this is very different from interracial marriage; it goes to the heart of the institution: procreation. Why, then, not argue for a government fertility test to guarantee infertile people won’t marry, or enact a penalty against long-childless couples? So much for that argument. …

From Hunt’s keyboard to… Well, looky here: Even hardcore right-winger Rod Dreher, of all people, has finally come to terms with the fact that attacking same-sex marriage is a nonstarter for Republicans. From Sunday’s Dallas Morning News:

Retreating to a defensible position on gay marriage
The California Supreme Court says gay marriage is a constitutional right. What a gift to Republicans!

You’re kidding, right? Republicans are all talk. Conservatives should quit lying to themselves about the culture war. It’s over. We’ve lost.

How? Polls show that most Americans are against gay marriage.

Yes, but not young voters. There’s a clearly emerging social consensus in favor of gay marriage.

Maybe conservatives need better arguments.

Good luck with that. What we’re arguing against is not gay marriage, really. It’s modernity itself. …

The course of Western history for the past 700 years has been toward the liberation of the individual and his desires. Modernity, as sociologist Daniel Bell has written, is built on “the proposition that there are no ends and purposes given in nature, that the individual and his or her self-realization is the new standard of judgment, and that one can remake one’s self and remake society in an effort to achieve those goals.”

What’s wrong with that? Individual rights and liberties are the cornerstone of American political order.

Precisely. Even Republicans are liberals in this sense. America is the modern nation par excellence. Here’s the catch: Absent a binding source of authority, you can’t pick and choose so easily where to draw freedom’s line.

The 1960s sexual revolution advanced the frontiers of liberty into the bedroom. Under the guise of privacy rights, contraception and abortion gained constitutional protection. When the California Supreme Court calls same-sex marriage a right because it is “integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy,” it is only ratifying a deep cultural change that’s already taken place. …

We’ve been moving steadily in this direction for seven centuries. Conservatives can’t stop this. Most don’t even know where to start.

So what are cultural conservatives supposed to do?

Now? Push for a constitutional amendment carving out a religious liberty exception to federal civil rights laws regarding homosexuality. Otherwise, religious institutions that adhere to traditional sexual morality are going to be strictly penalized once gay marriage is declared to be a federal constitutional right.

As happy as we are to see Dreher finally experiencing some enlightenment, he’s just dead wrong here. As Hunt notes (and as I’ve been telling every hysteric who screams, “Churches will be forced to marry homosexuals!”): “the notion that gay marriage steps on the prerogatives of religion is nonsense. No court ruling or proposed statute would require any church, synagogue or temple to perform, or even recognize, such unions.”

In the end, Dreher relapses into the empty “homosexual marriage will destroy our way of life” argument (uh, I don’t see Canadian society collapsing into chaotic anarchy, do you?). Nevertheless, he is finally recognizing that the anti-gay card makes for a losing hand — and, to our further shock and delight, he suggests, essentially, that the anti-gay crusaders should focus on taking the mote out of their own collective eye (although he gets it completely backwards, again, when he refers to the dawning of a new Age of Enlightenment as “the new Dark Ages”):

Cultural conservatives should focus on strengthening their families and local institutions. Dr. MacIntyre’s advice is stark: “What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new Dark Ages which are already upon us.”

The best part is Dreher’s grudging (but crystal clear) confession that the war on gay and lesbian Americans is indefensible:

It sounds like you’re surrendering in the culture war.

I prefer to think of it as retreating to a defensible position.

Tweet This Post!