On the anniversary of Stonewall, remember we must still fight
Another guest post by Danielle Truszkovsky, marking the beginning of a week-long in-depth look at the NOM.
Originally published in the South Florida Blade.
Although we are in another wonderful month of gay pride celebrations, it is important to remember that our community is in the midst of an active battle for equal civil rights. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM)—the group behind the nation-wide anti-gay movement—has recently expanded its efforts and ad campaigns to ensure that millions of gay Americans are denied the same basic rights as every other US citizen. Since we are fighting for our rights and the rights of our families, it makes sense that we should know as much as possible about our primary adversary.
On their website, NOM states they have a 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, which means that the group is a “Social Welfare Organization” without restrictions on lobbying expenditures. When I searched for the organization using Guidestar (the leading nonprofit research database), however, no such 501(c)(4) shows up. Instead the National Organization for MarriageInc shows up with a 501(c)(12) status which is for “Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Irrigation and Telephone Companies, and Like Co.” It seems this organization is intentionally misrepresenting itself.
It is also suspicious that this group, which has a seemingly limitless supply of cash, is operating out of a tiny one-room office (located at 20 Nassau Street, suite 242, in Princeton, NJ). I visited this office numerous times, but never found a single person working there.
Also strange is that this office was previously inhabited by a right-wing organization called the Witherspoon Institute, which according to the Opus Dei Awareness Network (ODAN) is an “Opus Dei-affiliated foundation.” Opus Dei is the secretive sect within the Catholic Church, with direct ties to the Vatican, that reportedly has billions of dollars in assets. They were made famous by the villain in “The Da Vinci Code,” who was a devout member of Opus Dei, albeit an uncharacteristically murderous one.
It’s not surprising, however, that an Opus Dei “Numerary” is one of the founding members of NOM. ODAN states, “Numerary members pledge to remain celibate and generally live in Opus Dei houses. They commit their entire salaries to Opus Dei, submit incoming and outgoing mail to their directors, and practice various forms of corporal mortification, including use of the cilice, a spiked chain worn around the thigh, and use of the discipline, a knotted rope for whipping.”
NOM has more than one tie to a controversial religious sect. Another founding member of the group was Matthew Holland, who is a professor at Brigham Young University. His father is a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This “Quorum” represents the governing body of the LDS church. The Mormon and Opus Dei connection comes together beautifully in NOM’s “Gathering Storm” ad campaign, and it appears that at least 3 of the “actors” in the commercial are Mormons and at least 1 is a member of Opus Dei.
Although NOM portrays itself as a group of average Americans, the reality is quite different. (Most Americans do not whip themselves with knotted ropes or stab their own legs with spiked chains.) And since the Board of NOM has such close ties to religious organizations with billions of dollars in assets, it is only logical to question where NOM’s funding is coming from and if it being reported accurately.
On March 25, 2009 Californians Against Hate requested copies of NOM’s IRS 990 tax return forms. Federal law requires non-profits release this information within 30 days. It is nearly 90 days after the initial request and still NOM has failed to release their tax forms and are currently accruing IRS fines of $20 per day until their financials are released to the public. What are they trying to hide?
Although NOM is continuing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on ad campaigns across the country, no one knows where this money is coming from. They are the only national organization working to deny gay Americans equal rights and their operating practices are suspect. Considering the Board’s obvious ties to the Mormon Church and Opus Dei—is it possible that the only nationalized effort against gay civil rights is merely a front group for controversial religious organizations in an attempt to force their religious ideology on the American public?
This June let’s remember that although we may have many differences within our own community, we are all fighting for a common goal: equal rights. If members of the Mormon Church and Opus Dei can come together in a “marriage” of sorts in a collaborative effort to deny gay Americans equal rights, then certainly we as a community can work together to ensure that we win this fight for equality.
 |
 |
Weekend Video Roundup: Why We Fight (Idaho Edition)
Interview with Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach on local Idaho TV 7:
Boise Pride, courtesy local Idaho FOX 12:
Boise Proud Concert (Part One):
Boise Proud Concert (Part Two):
Enjoy!
Have a great weekend.
Boise Pride, courtesy local Idaho FOX 12:
Boise Proud Concert (Part One):
Boise Proud Concert (Part Two):
Enjoy!
Have a great weekend.
NEWS RELEASE: Where's the Money, Maggie?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 Contact: Fred Karger 619-592-2008
Where’s the Money, Maggie?
Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Refuses to Turn Over Its Federal Financial Records as Required by Law.
Californians Against Hate began requesting your 990s (IRS non-profit tax filings) over three months ago, Maggie. You have not responded as required by law. We visited your national office in Princeton, N.J. twice to view the Form 990s, and sent our requests there by certified mail.
Someone at that address signed the US Postal Service receipt on April 25, 2009 (see copy below). You then had 30 days to comply with our request, but you still have not sent us your federal tax filings for 2007 and 2008.
We have also been to your “office” in Manassas, VA, and no forms there either, Maggie. It looks to be the home of your Treasurer, Neil Corkery. The Corkerys are apparently traveling around the world, and again, the forms are not available for public inspection as required by federal law.
What are you hiding, Maggie? Tell Us the Truth!
Is it all the involvement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) in creating and funding the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.? That is exactly what the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating (Case # 08/735) right now.
As you are probably aware, the IRS fine for noncompliance is $20.00 per day for every day that you do not turn over your records up to a total of $10,000. For the 92 days so far, you owe the United States Treasury $1,840. While that won’t put much of a dent in the national debt, it is what you owe the government so far in fines. Frankly, Maggie, we are tired of waiting, and are exploring other actions to force the release of your filings.
Is NOM Even a Legal Entity?
In another very interesting development, we received a letter from the IRS last week in response to the request that we filed with them on May 6, 2009 for your Form 990s. The IRS said that, “we have no record of any organization by the name (National Organization for Marriage, Inc.) or address ( 20 Nassau Street, Ste. 242, Princeton, N.J 08542). Now, can you explain that?? They do have a record of your Educational Fund, the 501(c)3, but that apparently was just established last year. NOM, Inc. was established in May 2007 to get Prop 8 on the ballot, so there should be 2 annual filings available on NOM, Inc.
Here’s the copy of the IRS letter:
Maggie, why don’t you do the right thing and release your 2007 and 2008 form 990’s? Just what is in there about your funding and expenditures that you don’t want people to see?
A recent Washington Post story had this to say about the Mormon Church’s involvement in the same-sex marriage battles in six Northeastern States.
Mormon officials have tried to stay out of the controversy that followed the California vote, when the church's prominent role in the marriage fight became clear. A spokeswoman in Salt Lake City declined to say whether the church is involved in debates going on in states such as New Jersey and New York, except to say that leaders remain intent on preserving the "divine institution" of marriage between man and woman. The faith holds that traditional marriage "transcends this world" and is necessary for "the fullness of joy in the next life."
Well, Maggie it’s not so divine for you to stonewall your financial records.
That Admission by the Mormon Church
Raises Many More Questions
Raises Many More Questions
Who is paying for your multi million dollar TV campaign? Who is funding your $500,000 New York State PAC? Your California PAC? Who is paying for all the direct mail robo-calls and millions of direct connect calls in New York alone? Where did you get the $6 million that you admit to spending as reported this week in your hometown newspaper, The Journal News: LoHud.com ?
How much are you and your executive director Brian Brown getting paid? Is the Mormon Church paying you directly or through another one of your other organizations like the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy?
Is the Mormon Church producing all of your slick new commercials? Your controversial and often maligned A Gathering Storm commercial that was made using actors pretending to be real people was chock full of Mormon actors, mostly from Arizona. Most of the bad actors on your audition tapes appear to be Mormon as well. We have that documented.
Just how much money is the Mormon Church spending now to fight same-sex marriage in at least 7 states? Mormon families spent close to $30 million in California to pass Proposition 8 last year. The Mormon Church has likely spent tens of millions of dollars directly throughout the country on all their efforts to stop gay marriage since they hired the world’s largest PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, in 1988. It even appears that the Mormon Church, through its Public Affairs Committee, was monitoring same-sex marriage activities and involved in Canada as well.
We know that the Mormon Church has not been truthful about all of its involvement in opposing same-sex marriage for 20 years. We have seen ample evidence of this in the Church documents that we received.
When we filed our complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission last November, Mormon Church officials first said they spent “zero dollars on Prop 8.” Then 3 months after the election, they finally admitted to have made $190,000 in non-monetary contributions. Nearly all of that was supposedly spent the week before the election.
They later changed their story again, saying that the $117,000 reported in Salt Lake City staff time ($96,000) and facilities’ usage ($20,500) was not actually spent just on election day as they had reported to the California Secretary of State. According to Church spokesman Scott Trotter, the staff time included work between August and November. Well, then shouldn’t there have been other expenditures in August or even July and September? Come on Maggie, tell the truth!
The Mormon Church announced its active participation to pass Proposition 8 in the now famous letter read from Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church. This rare act took place on June 29, 2008, and was read to every Mormon in the Western United States. President Monson called on all Mormons to give of “your time and your means to pass Proposition 8.”
Well, it worked. As we now know, the Mormon Church took over every aspect of the Yes on 8 campaign, and was largely responsible for its passage.
Please, Maggie, tell America the truth for once about where your millions of dollars are coming from. We are a country of laws, and we have the right to know.
Danielle TRUSZKOVSKY: Deception, Denial and Opus Dei
Are religious groups illegally funding anti-gay political battles in America?
Guest post by Danielle Truszkovsky, marking the beginning of a week-long in-depth look at the NOM.
Originally published in the South Florida Blade.
On April 17, 2009 I made a trip from Florida to Princeton, NJ, for the sole purpose of visiting 20 Nassau Street. One of the organizations in this building, formerly in Suite 242, is the Witherspoon Institute, an “independent research center” that works to uphold Republican policies; the same suite, 242, is also home to the National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded the multi-million dollar homophobic “Yes on 8” campaign in California.
It was no surprise to discover a Republican-affiliated organization is tied to the National Organization for Marriage. However—according to the Opus Dei Awareness Network (ODAN), the Witherspoon Institute is an “Opus Dei-affiliated organization.”
Opus Dei is the controversial sect within the Roman Catholic Church that gained notoriety in the best-selling novel and blockbuster film, The Da Vinci Code. The term Opus Dei is Latin for, “work of God.” A 2006 Time Magazine article reported that there are approximately 85,500 members of the group worldwide with a “mere 3,000 in the US,” yet it is estimated that Opus assets are roughly $344 million dollars within the US—and $2.8 billion globally.
Religious organizations, or any “non-profit” organizations, are not legally allowed to engage in political lobbying, or they lose their tax-exempt status. Presuming this really is is an “Opus Dei-affiliated” foundation, why is it tied to the same office as an anti-gay political lobbying group? What influence, if any, does Opus Dei have on NOM and/or its Board Members? And where are they sending their money? How interesting that all these organizations, worth millions and millions of dollars, are tied to this one little office in New Jersey…suite 242.
When I started researching NOM several months ago, I found an interesting commonality: a man named Luis Tellez is on the Board of NOM, serves as President of the Witherspoon Institute, and also holds the title of “Numerary” in Opus Dei. According to ODAN, “Numerary members pledge to remain celibate and generally live in Opus Dei houses. They commit their entire salaries to Opus Dei, submit incoming and outgoing mail to their directors, and practice various forms of corporal mortification...”
Tellez agreed to a phone interview, and he vehemently denies ODAN’s claims that the political “research center” Witherspoon Institute is affiliated with Opus Dei. He says, “Opus Dei doesn’t work that way.” So I asked about the similar address for Witherspoon and NOM. Tellez said that Witherspoon “rented the space on a month-to-month basis,” and when they were ready to vacate, he recommended to NOM that they look into renting the office.
He also denies any correlation between Opus Dei and NOM. He went on to say that his work with Opus Dei is “personal” and “takes place in the evenings and on weekends.” But as he devotes his life’s work (and much of his salary) to Opus Dei, how is it possible then that this work only occurs on nights and weekends?
There is another interesting connection which should be noted. Inspection of the Witherspoon’s IRS tax form 990 filed in June 2007 reveals grants made to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP). Margaret “Maggie” Gallagher is the President of the IMAPP. She, along with Tellez, are also both on the Board of NOM, with Gallagher serving as President.
Tellez said, “It is likely that Witherspoon may have written a check to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy to cover professional services rendered by Maggie Gallagher... we are very proud to have been able to enlist her professional work in the formulation of ‘Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles…’” These “principles” make up the document that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) used as the basis to push for the 2006 U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. And guess what? According to Rolling Stone magazine, Brownback converted to Catholicism through Opus Dei in 2002.
It is difficult to tell if Opus Dei is illegally donating funds because churches don't have to file IRS 990s. Even then, it is possible that they didn't donate directly, and instead just pressured their congregations to do so. The paper trail is virtually impossible to follow.
In the meantime, NOM will continue to assault the American public with the same old homophobic arguments, including their famously ominous “there’s a storm gathering” commercial campaign, featuring Damon Owens as the voice of the “rainbow coalition,” speaking against civil rights for gay Americans. Interestingly enough, Owens is a member of Opus Dei.
It is dangerous when religious organizations use their tremendous resources and spiritual influence to create one-sided research, presented as facts which are packaged into multi-million dollar ad campaigns . Ideally, the best solution would be to require all churches to be completely transparent with their financial records; however, minimally, an investigation should be made in this case to determine to what degree Opus Dei has participated in lobbying and also into NOM to determine how much they may have benefited from these efforts.
Guest post by Danielle Truszkovsky, marking the beginning of a week-long in-depth look at the NOM.
Originally published in the South Florida Blade.
On April 17, 2009 I made a trip from Florida to Princeton, NJ, for the sole purpose of visiting 20 Nassau Street. One of the organizations in this building, formerly in Suite 242, is the Witherspoon Institute, an “independent research center” that works to uphold Republican policies; the same suite, 242, is also home to the National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded the multi-million dollar homophobic “Yes on 8” campaign in California.
It was no surprise to discover a Republican-affiliated organization is tied to the National Organization for Marriage. However—according to the Opus Dei Awareness Network (ODAN), the Witherspoon Institute is an “Opus Dei-affiliated organization.”
Opus Dei is the controversial sect within the Roman Catholic Church that gained notoriety in the best-selling novel and blockbuster film, The Da Vinci Code. The term Opus Dei is Latin for, “work of God.” A 2006 Time Magazine article reported that there are approximately 85,500 members of the group worldwide with a “mere 3,000 in the US,” yet it is estimated that Opus assets are roughly $344 million dollars within the US—and $2.8 billion globally.
Religious organizations, or any “non-profit” organizations, are not legally allowed to engage in political lobbying, or they lose their tax-exempt status. Presuming this really is is an “Opus Dei-affiliated” foundation, why is it tied to the same office as an anti-gay political lobbying group? What influence, if any, does Opus Dei have on NOM and/or its Board Members? And where are they sending their money? How interesting that all these organizations, worth millions and millions of dollars, are tied to this one little office in New Jersey…suite 242.
When I started researching NOM several months ago, I found an interesting commonality: a man named Luis Tellez is on the Board of NOM, serves as President of the Witherspoon Institute, and also holds the title of “Numerary” in Opus Dei. According to ODAN, “Numerary members pledge to remain celibate and generally live in Opus Dei houses. They commit their entire salaries to Opus Dei, submit incoming and outgoing mail to their directors, and practice various forms of corporal mortification...”
Tellez agreed to a phone interview, and he vehemently denies ODAN’s claims that the political “research center” Witherspoon Institute is affiliated with Opus Dei. He says, “Opus Dei doesn’t work that way.” So I asked about the similar address for Witherspoon and NOM. Tellez said that Witherspoon “rented the space on a month-to-month basis,” and when they were ready to vacate, he recommended to NOM that they look into renting the office.
He also denies any correlation between Opus Dei and NOM. He went on to say that his work with Opus Dei is “personal” and “takes place in the evenings and on weekends.” But as he devotes his life’s work (and much of his salary) to Opus Dei, how is it possible then that this work only occurs on nights and weekends?
There is another interesting connection which should be noted. Inspection of the Witherspoon’s IRS tax form 990 filed in June 2007 reveals grants made to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMAPP). Margaret “Maggie” Gallagher is the President of the IMAPP. She, along with Tellez, are also both on the Board of NOM, with Gallagher serving as President.
Tellez said, “It is likely that Witherspoon may have written a check to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy to cover professional services rendered by Maggie Gallagher... we are very proud to have been able to enlist her professional work in the formulation of ‘Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles…’” These “principles” make up the document that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) used as the basis to push for the 2006 U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. And guess what? According to Rolling Stone magazine, Brownback converted to Catholicism through Opus Dei in 2002.
It is difficult to tell if Opus Dei is illegally donating funds because churches don't have to file IRS 990s. Even then, it is possible that they didn't donate directly, and instead just pressured their congregations to do so. The paper trail is virtually impossible to follow.
In the meantime, NOM will continue to assault the American public with the same old homophobic arguments, including their famously ominous “there’s a storm gathering” commercial campaign, featuring Damon Owens as the voice of the “rainbow coalition,” speaking against civil rights for gay Americans. Interestingly enough, Owens is a member of Opus Dei.
It is dangerous when religious organizations use their tremendous resources and spiritual influence to create one-sided research, presented as facts which are packaged into multi-million dollar ad campaigns . Ideally, the best solution would be to require all churches to be completely transparent with their financial records; however, minimally, an investigation should be made in this case to determine to what degree Opus Dei has participated in lobbying and also into NOM to determine how much they may have benefited from these efforts.
NOM Chairman Robert P. George: "Utah will be whipped into line."
"Just as the nation could not endure half slave and half free but eventually had to go all one way or all the other, we will not be able to get by with a situation in which some couples are married in one state, not married when they move to or travel through the next, and married again when they reach a third. |
That sounds about right, Prof. George.
Remind me again, what were we arguing about?
I'm six years late, but I've just read George's WSJ Op-Ed from 2003, and I'm now very curious as to how he justifies his continuing role in this contest? His own accounts (both from his BYU Forum lecture and in that WSJ article) leave me convinced that he knows it's over. In which case, what is it that he's hoping to accomplish at this point through NOM's political fundraising and spending, considering that the political objective is one that he himself describes as a lost cause?
Idaho Local TV Report Asks: What Is A Family?
Excerpt from transcript of Danielle Grant's Local News 8 report:
Towleroad mentioned the story a fortnight ago, but with this fresh and very worthy video report courtesy of Eastern Idaho's #1 News Source, well, a second look might be in order.The definition of family is under scrutiny.
This comes after a local same-sex couple was denied a family pool pass at Lava Hot Springs.
The two claim the staff at the swimming pool facility told them they didn't fit the description of a family and couldn't get the reduced rate.
The executive director of the Lava Hot Springs Foundation says they define parents as adults who are legally in charge of dependent children or who are married to the adult who's in charge of the kids.
Since the state of Idaho doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, the American Falls couple didn't get the $20 pass.
Local News 8 talked with both parties about it and the two ladies say they're frustrated the facility would belittle them. While the Lava Hot Springs foundation says they were just following its policy.
Sunshine, blue skies and getting wet in the water!
It was a day full of family and fun.
But the family of five says their fun was cut short in the ticket line.
"We're a family. We live together. This is our family and she said, ‘No it doesn't work that way.' A family is a mom, dad and children. I was like are you kidding me?" said Amber Koger, who got turned away.
The executive director for the Lava Hot Springs, Mark Lowe, says to get the discount parents must be legally obligated to the children or married to someone who is.
And more than 100,000 people splash in the pools during the summer season and he says this has always been the policy.
"Not everybody accepts our lifestyle and that's fine we deal with that everyday but don't put our family down in front of the kids," said Jeri Underwood, frustrated with the situation.
Because, in all of the back-and-forth about "marriage" ... it's a useful reminder that this is ultimately about "family" ... a concept so basic and universal that even some of us from the Mormon Corridor are able to grasp that - when it comes to family - "It's about Time!"
And maybe it's about time I post a shameless plug for my YouTube channel. With a few more subscribers, it'll soon be the #1 "political news" channel in Taiwan.
Anyway, enough of my self-serving non sequiturs ... who would've thunk - even just a few years ago - that a press release like this would be issued from Lava Hot Springs, Idaho?
As Idaho booster Misty writes, "Idaho might not be the kind of place you fantasize about when you think vacation, but you might be pleasantly surprised ... Load up the car with snacks, friends, or your partner and kids and hit the road."
And sure as shootin', after this latest kerfuffle, you just might well be (properly welcomed and surprised). So, good on Lava Hot Springs, and here's to progress and to pleasant surprises in future (rather than that other kind that Jeri and Amber and their kids had to deal with so recently).
National Organization for Marriage, Inc.
Who/what is the NOM? Apparently, the NOM is the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.
Who knew?
C'mon, kids. The NOM is now pumping money into Maine to fight marriage equality and we don't even have a handle on who they are. What gives? And what will it take to force this outfit to provide the level of disclosure that we're owed under both the spirit and the letter of our campaign finance laws?
Meet your anti-gay adversaries
Sure, I'd love to meet them, but where are they?
I am this close to going all David Parker on this crew, but I also don't want to be flying out to Princeton, NJ just to find an empty office.
Time to give Neil Corkery, Brian Brown and David Bauer a call re the disposition of the IRS filings for these:
National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (EIN: 26-0240498)
a 501(c)(4) formed January 2008
c/o Neil Corkery
9502 Nelson Ln
Manassas, VA 20110-4310
National Organization for Marriage Education Fund (EIN: 11-3818465)
a 501(c)(3) formed July 2008
c/o Neil Corkery
9502 Nelson Ln
Manassas, VA 20110-4310
National Organization for Marriage California PAC (EIN: 26-4205819)
a 501(c)(4) formed February 2009
c/o David Bauer
2150 River Plaza Dr Ste 150
Sacramento, CA 95833-4131
National Organization for Marriage PAC New York (EIN: 27-0394565)
a 501(c)(4) formed June 2009
c/o Brian S. Brown
20 Nassau Street Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
Also, worth noting:
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (EIN: 20-0240184)
c/o Neil Corkery
PO Box 1231
Manassas, VA 20108
-and-
8280 Grennsboro Dr 7th Floor
McLean, VA 22102
The John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs (EIN: 27 0151485)
a 501(c)(3) formed August 2009
c/o Ralph C. Hancock
2075 N Canyon Rd
Provo, UT 84604-5832
In the meantime, check out Keith Eddings report about NY, NOM, LDS, FPPC, IRS and CAH:
Foe of N.Y.'s same-sex marriage probed
Who knew?
C'mon, kids. The NOM is now pumping money into Maine to fight marriage equality and we don't even have a handle on who they are. What gives? And what will it take to force this outfit to provide the level of disclosure that we're owed under both the spirit and the letter of our campaign finance laws?
Meet your anti-gay adversaries
Sure, I'd love to meet them, but where are they?
I am this close to going all David Parker on this crew, but I also don't want to be flying out to Princeton, NJ just to find an empty office.
Time to give Neil Corkery, Brian Brown and David Bauer a call re the disposition of the IRS filings for these:
National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (EIN: 26-0240498)
a 501(c)(4) formed January 2008
c/o Neil Corkery
9502 Nelson Ln
Manassas, VA 20110-4310
National Organization for Marriage Education Fund (EIN: 11-3818465)
a 501(c)(3) formed July 2008
c/o Neil Corkery
9502 Nelson Ln
Manassas, VA 20110-4310
National Organization for Marriage California PAC (EIN: 26-4205819)
a 501(c)(4) formed February 2009
c/o David Bauer
2150 River Plaza Dr Ste 150
Sacramento, CA 95833-4131
National Organization for Marriage PAC New York (EIN: 27-0394565)
a 501(c)(4) formed June 2009
c/o Brian S. Brown
20 Nassau Street Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
Also, worth noting:
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (EIN: 20-0240184)
c/o Neil Corkery
PO Box 1231
Manassas, VA 20108
-and-
8280 Grennsboro Dr 7th Floor
McLean, VA 22102
The John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs (EIN: 27 0151485)
a 501(c)(3) formed August 2009
c/o Ralph C. Hancock
2075 N Canyon Rd
Provo, UT 84604-5832
In the meantime, check out Keith Eddings report about NY, NOM, LDS, FPPC, IRS and CAH:
Foe of N.Y.'s same-sex marriage probed
White House Looks to Include Same-Sex Unions in Census Count
h/t Lavender Newswire
Not my normal beat, but I'm in the mood for a bit of good news ...
First, check this out from Mercury News:
Census study of gay married couples finds similarities to husband-and-wife couples
Looking at the numbers above, it seems pretty obvious that gay and straight married couples share more in common than either group might care to admit.
Then, check this out from The Wall Street Journal:
JUNE 19, 2009
White House Looks to Include Same-Sex Unions in Census Count
By JAKE SHERMAN
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Thursday it was seeking ways to include same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in 2010 Census data, the second time in a week the administration has signaled a policy change of interest to the gay community.
...
The gay community strongly supported President Barack Obama during the 2008 election. But some gay activists say they have been frustrated by what they see as his slow approach to rolling back discriminatory policies.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said "the administration continues to make progress on the president's longstanding commitment to promoting equality for [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] Americans."
...
The Census Bureau has long collected data on same-sex marriages when people chose to report it. White House officials said the previous administration interpreted the federal Defense of Marriage Act as prohibiting the release of the data. The Obama administration has abandoned that interpretation.
...
An accurate statistical snapshot of legally married same-sex couples may be elusive. Before the White House's plan emerged, Howard Hogan, associate director for demographic programs at the Census Bureau, said data from its 2007 American Community Survey showed more than 340,000 same-sex couples as being in marriages. But according to data from Massachusetts, the only state that permitted gay marriages in 2007, about 11,000 marriage licenses were issued for same-sex couples.
The Obama administration was under pressure to change the Census policy. Rep. Mike Quigley (D., Ill.) sent a letter Tuesday to Mr. Obama, urging him to order the bureau to release same-sex marriage data as part of its standard tabulation of the 2010 Census.
Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Steve Israel of New York and 51 other lawmakers wrote to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag last month, asking him to work with the bureau's parent agency, the Commerce Department, to reconsider the policy. Mr. Israel said the broad support for his letter shows that Congress has a real "appetite" for movement on this issue.
The original plan for handling these marriages in the 2010 Census was controversial among some statisticians and gay activists. Following procedures employed in 2000, the bureau had planned to use a computer program that recategorized spouses in same-sex marriages as unmarried partners. For the 1990 count, the bureau simply altered the gender designation of one partner.
Some members of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee, composed of private statisticians and members of nonprofit groups, said they think that the bureau has handled same-sex marriages irresponsibly. Ed Spar, a member of the committee and the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, said altering data like the bureau has done with same-sex marriages "does not make any sense."
Read the full article here.
My comment:
Of course this is great news, but to the extent that a policy "doesn't make sense" (which this one obviously didn't), interest in seeing a better policy put in place is certainly not limited to the gay community.
Speaking as a straight American, life-long Democrat, and enthusiastic Obama supporter, I truly hope that this administration does not intend to waste a lot of its time congratulating itself in the press every single time similar policy corrections are made. I mean, this one was a no-brainer, right? So just fix it.
There'll be plenty of appreciation and admiration to go around once DADT and DOMA are gone.
In the meantime, please don't go framing every single positive policy change as a sop to concerned LGBT constituents. Such an approach is too divisive, time-consuming and transparently self-serving. Unfortunately, the way Obama is dragging his feet in this area, it's starting to look like maybe that's the plan, and that would be a real shame. Most of this stuff is about basic fairness and equality under the law and could get dealt with fairly expeditiously with the right leadership.
Not my normal beat, but I'm in the mood for a bit of good news ...
First, check this out from Mercury News:
Census study of gay married couples finds similarities to husband-and-wife couples
Looking at the numbers above, it seems pretty obvious that gay and straight married couples share more in common than either group might care to admit.
Then, check this out from The Wall Street Journal:
JUNE 19, 2009
White House Looks to Include Same-Sex Unions in Census Count
By JAKE SHERMAN
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Thursday it was seeking ways to include same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in 2010 Census data, the second time in a week the administration has signaled a policy change of interest to the gay community.
...
The gay community strongly supported President Barack Obama during the 2008 election. But some gay activists say they have been frustrated by what they see as his slow approach to rolling back discriminatory policies.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said "the administration continues to make progress on the president's longstanding commitment to promoting equality for [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] Americans."
...
The Census Bureau has long collected data on same-sex marriages when people chose to report it. White House officials said the previous administration interpreted the federal Defense of Marriage Act as prohibiting the release of the data. The Obama administration has abandoned that interpretation.
...
An accurate statistical snapshot of legally married same-sex couples may be elusive. Before the White House's plan emerged, Howard Hogan, associate director for demographic programs at the Census Bureau, said data from its 2007 American Community Survey showed more than 340,000 same-sex couples as being in marriages. But according to data from Massachusetts, the only state that permitted gay marriages in 2007, about 11,000 marriage licenses were issued for same-sex couples.
The Obama administration was under pressure to change the Census policy. Rep. Mike Quigley (D., Ill.) sent a letter Tuesday to Mr. Obama, urging him to order the bureau to release same-sex marriage data as part of its standard tabulation of the 2010 Census.
Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Steve Israel of New York and 51 other lawmakers wrote to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag last month, asking him to work with the bureau's parent agency, the Commerce Department, to reconsider the policy. Mr. Israel said the broad support for his letter shows that Congress has a real "appetite" for movement on this issue.
The original plan for handling these marriages in the 2010 Census was controversial among some statisticians and gay activists. Following procedures employed in 2000, the bureau had planned to use a computer program that recategorized spouses in same-sex marriages as unmarried partners. For the 1990 count, the bureau simply altered the gender designation of one partner.
Some members of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee, composed of private statisticians and members of nonprofit groups, said they think that the bureau has handled same-sex marriages irresponsibly. Ed Spar, a member of the committee and the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, said altering data like the bureau has done with same-sex marriages "does not make any sense."
Read the full article here.
My comment:
Of course this is great news, but to the extent that a policy "doesn't make sense" (which this one obviously didn't), interest in seeing a better policy put in place is certainly not limited to the gay community.
Speaking as a straight American, life-long Democrat, and enthusiastic Obama supporter, I truly hope that this administration does not intend to waste a lot of its time congratulating itself in the press every single time similar policy corrections are made. I mean, this one was a no-brainer, right? So just fix it.
There'll be plenty of appreciation and admiration to go around once DADT and DOMA are gone.
In the meantime, please don't go framing every single positive policy change as a sop to concerned LGBT constituents. Such an approach is too divisive, time-consuming and transparently self-serving. Unfortunately, the way Obama is dragging his feet in this area, it's starting to look like maybe that's the plan, and that would be a real shame. Most of this stuff is about basic fairness and equality under the law and could get dealt with fairly expeditiously with the right leadership.
Two Websites (NOM California & GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE) ... One Shared Administrative Contact: David Benkof
Next time I get back to Brooklyn, I was planning on taking half a day to drop by the NOM office over in Princeton, NJ so I could make an in-person request to see their IRS filings. If they were to refuse, I was thinking I could go all David Parker on them.
Anyway, thing is, I wasn't sure of their office address, so I ran a WHOIS lookup to get it, and that's when I noticed the email they'd listed for their admin and tech contact: webbsgarbage@yahoo.com
Click this link and see for yourself:
www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/nomcalifornia.org
Now, click this link and see if you notice anything familiar on the page:
www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/gaysdefendmarriage.com
Not only do both domains share the same admin/tech email, but apparently webbsgarbage@yahoo.com belongs to David Benkof.
What does it all mean?
No idea, except that maybe Maggie and David's bunker has always been even smaller than I'd imagined.
Certainly, there's not much going on in the way of discussion over at Benkof's resurrected Gays Defend Marriage, where a familiar ragtag outfit of anti-gay weirdos drops by from time-to-time on patrol between their various outposts at NOM Blog, The Opine Editorials, and Beetle Blogger.
As Hendrik Hertzberg predicted, "Like a polluted swamp, anti-gay bigotry is likely to get thicker and more toxic as it dries up." Thing is, as long as a little water remains, you can still take the airboat out and have some fun buzzing the surface, but at this point, it looks like maybe the time has finally come to park it and pull on the puddle jumpers.
But before I start exaggerating reports of NOM's demise, can you believe this latest news? Maggie and Brian are launching NOM PAC New York.
NOM's P.R. notes, "Since its inception in July 2007, the NOM has raised more than $6 million in its efforts to defend marriage ..."
Yeah, and how much of that $6 million has been properly reported? Except for the $1.8 million spent on the Prop 8 campaign by NOM, we have no idea where NOM's funds are coming from or how they're being spent.
*Update* Just noticed that Maggie Gallagher lists webbsgarbage@yahoo.com as her email for these domains:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/marriagedebate.com
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/iMAPP.org
Silliness.
What's the story, David?
*David responds by email:
In May of 2008, Maggie Gallagher did me a favor and helped me get my Web site set up. (I don't know anything about the techy part of it.) I don't, however, have any affiliation with NOM California or otherwise, and given my outspoken opposition to Prop. 8 I doubt they would want me to have one. I do however support much of their efforts.
Well, that settles that.
Time to get back to our regularly-scheduled program.
Anyway, thing is, I wasn't sure of their office address, so I ran a WHOIS lookup to get it, and that's when I noticed the email they'd listed for their admin and tech contact: webbsgarbage@yahoo.com
Click this link and see for yourself:
www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/nomcalifornia.org
Now, click this link and see if you notice anything familiar on the page:
www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/gaysdefendmarriage.com
Not only do both domains share the same admin/tech email, but apparently webbsgarbage@yahoo.com belongs to David Benkof.
What does it all mean?
No idea, except that maybe Maggie and David's bunker has always been even smaller than I'd imagined.
Certainly, there's not much going on in the way of discussion over at Benkof's resurrected Gays Defend Marriage, where a familiar ragtag outfit of anti-gay weirdos drops by from time-to-time on patrol between their various outposts at NOM Blog, The Opine Editorials, and Beetle Blogger.
As Hendrik Hertzberg predicted, "Like a polluted swamp, anti-gay bigotry is likely to get thicker and more toxic as it dries up." Thing is, as long as a little water remains, you can still take the airboat out and have some fun buzzing the surface, but at this point, it looks like maybe the time has finally come to park it and pull on the puddle jumpers.
But before I start exaggerating reports of NOM's demise, can you believe this latest news? Maggie and Brian are launching NOM PAC New York.
NOM's P.R. notes, "Since its inception in July 2007, the NOM has raised more than $6 million in its efforts to defend marriage ..."
Yeah, and how much of that $6 million has been properly reported? Except for the $1.8 million spent on the Prop 8 campaign by NOM, we have no idea where NOM's funds are coming from or how they're being spent.
*Update* Just noticed that Maggie Gallagher lists webbsgarbage@yahoo.com as her email for these domains:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/marriagedebate.com
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/iMAPP.org
Silliness.
What's the story, David?
*David responds by email:
In May of 2008, Maggie Gallagher did me a favor and helped me get my Web site set up. (I don't know anything about the techy part of it.) I don't, however, have any affiliation with NOM California or otherwise, and given my outspoken opposition to Prop. 8 I doubt they would want me to have one. I do however support much of their efforts.
Well, that settles that.
Time to get back to our regularly-scheduled program.
Schadenfreude II: Lightning Strikes New Mormon (LDS) Temple
I'm telling you, Brother W. Scott Simpson, we're not the only ones upset by that ridiculous motion to dismiss that you helped write:
Schadenfreude: Official Mormon (LDS) Twitter Channel Gets Jacked
It wasn't "hacked" it was "jacked" ... sorry, Joe, but somebody on the inside knew the password and decided it was time for a little fun.
Blowback:
Scallywags.
Reprobates.
It wasn't me.
Osiris!
Hilarity ensues.
Mormon-owned KSL weighs in with this from Joe Cannon: "It's a problem, yeah, I'd say it's a big problem that Twitter has, yeah."
Blowback:
Scallywags.
Reprobates.
It wasn't me.
Osiris!
Hilarity ensues.
Mormon-owned KSL weighs in with this from Joe Cannon: "It's a problem, yeah, I'd say it's a big problem that Twitter has, yeah."
Calling New Jersey: NOM Needs Another House Call
Californians Against Hate have twice had their representatives go by the Princeton, New Jersey offices of the National Organization for Marriage to get copies of NOM's IRS 990 reports, to no avail.
NOM is required by federal law to have these available for public view. FWIW, in addition to having reps drop by, two certified letters have already been sent to the NOM office from CAH:
To no avail.
Under IRS rules, failure to respond brings fines of $20 per day up to $10,000 per committee until the financial disclosures are made public.
In other words ... Peanuts.
And as fun as this was ...
... what we need now is for those of you living in or near Princeton, NJ to drop in and personally request to see the Form 990s that should rightfully be available for you to see:
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
Phone: (609) 688-0450
Fax: (888) 894-3604
Months have passed without any movement on this from the IRS, so it's time to step it up. As fun as it's been to mock NOM, unless we figure out a way to enforce their adherence to the same rules that the rest of us live and work by every day in this contest, they will - win or lose - be having a last laugh at our expense ... unless we somehow succeed in our quest to be shown the Form 990s that we all have every right to see.
NOM is required by federal law to have these available for public view. FWIW, in addition to having reps drop by, two certified letters have already been sent to the NOM office from CAH:
To no avail.
Under IRS rules, failure to respond brings fines of $20 per day up to $10,000 per committee until the financial disclosures are made public.
In other words ... Peanuts.
And as fun as this was ...
... what we need now is for those of you living in or near Princeton, NJ to drop in and personally request to see the Form 990s that should rightfully be available for you to see:
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
Phone: (609) 688-0450
Fax: (888) 894-3604
Months have passed without any movement on this from the IRS, so it's time to step it up. As fun as it's been to mock NOM, unless we figure out a way to enforce their adherence to the same rules that the rest of us live and work by every day in this contest, they will - win or lose - be having a last laugh at our expense ... unless we somehow succeed in our quest to be shown the Form 990s that we all have every right to see.
Stand 4 Marriage rally in Albany: FLOP
Stand for Marriage Rally
East Steps, Capitol (Albany, NY)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Participants at Tuesday’s rally encouraged state senators to vote “no” on same-sex marriage legislation.
The rally began at 10:30 AM and featured speakers:
• New York State Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz (D – Bronx)
• Mr. Michael Long, Chairman, New York State Conservative Party
• Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
• Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., Executive Director, High Impact Leadership Coalition
• Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage
• Bishop Joseph Mattera, Presiding Bishop of Christ Covenant Coalition
• Rev. George Grace, Senior Pastor, First Bible Baptist Church, Rochester
• Rev. Duane Motley, Executive Director, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms
• Other pro-family leaders and state legislators
It was HUGE!!! Take a look:
A huge flop.
The bigot brigade is claiming 2,000 turned out.
It was hundreds.
Not to mention that Maggie/NOM and Tony/FRC had both issued PR's announcing a press conference to be held after the rally, and then ... nada, crickets, nothing more than the brief snippet of Duane Motley speaking that ran on a single local newscast. Pathetic.
Be sure to check out this worthy report from Blabbeando.
Learn how you can support the effort to achieve marriage equality in New York at MarriageNY.com.
Further resources at Empire State Pride Agenda's marriage site.
This Week in Utah: Cleve Jones and a gay bashing
Jennifer Dobner's AP report in the WaPo: Gay rights activist calls for march on Washington
JoSelle Vanderhooft interviews Cleve Jones for QSaltLake here.
Deseret News reports:
Cleve Jones in Salt Lake City: Thank you, Mormons!
Cleve Jones Announces LGBT March on Washington DC for October 11:
Meanwhile, ABC4 reports on a gay bashing in Ogden:
By the way, check out this Facebook event page: Pray and Fast New York
It's ostensibly an appeal to New Yorkers, but funny thing is, all I see are the names of Mormons from Utah and California on that page (e.g., Angela Rockwood, Emily Dyer). So, even if you're not from New York, please feel free to drop by and leave a snarky comment (leaving a comment is the only interaction allowed on that page - after several NOM Facebook debacles, they've gotten smart and hidden the guest list this time around).
JoSelle Vanderhooft interviews Cleve Jones for QSaltLake here.
Deseret News reports:
Bursts of torrential rain did little to dampen the spirits of those gathered to cheer Jones, who served as the parade's grand marshal; local political figures; and the dozens of floats that made up this year's procession — a highlight of the three-day Utah Pride Festival at Washington Square that drew more than 20,000 attendees. After the parade, Jones told a festival crowd that it is time to reprise a 1979 march for gay rights on the nation's capital and demand full equality. He said the march, planned for Oct. 11, will coincide with National Coming Out Day.Cleve Jones sits down with Utah's Fox13:
"We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states," Jones said. "It is time to march again."
"I've got a message for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," he said. "Thank you. Thank you for uniting us. Thank you for galvanizing us," he said, referring to the efforts of the church and its members to win passage last year of California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Cleve Jones in Salt Lake City: Thank you, Mormons!
Cleve Jones Announces LGBT March on Washington DC for October 11:
Meanwhile, ABC4 reports on a gay bashing in Ogden:
By the way, check out this Facebook event page: Pray and Fast New York
It's ostensibly an appeal to New Yorkers, but funny thing is, all I see are the names of Mormons from Utah and California on that page (e.g., Angela Rockwood, Emily Dyer). So, even if you're not from New York, please feel free to drop by and leave a snarky comment (leaving a comment is the only interaction allowed on that page - after several NOM Facebook debacles, they've gotten smart and hidden the guest list this time around).
Karen Ocamb interviews Ted Olson: All of us have the right to due process and equal protection
Originally published at Frontiers.
Republished here without permission.
Many in the LGBT community were stunned at the news that Ted Olson, a famous conservative and the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, was joining forces with equally famous liberal attorney David Boies to bring a marriage-equality case in federal court.
Olson was asked to represent two same-sex couples by openly gay political consultant Chad Griffin, who formed a new group—American Foundation for Equal Rights—to support the endeavor.
The case, filed May 26 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asks the federal courts to strike down Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and it asks for an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8.
“We’re going to court because people shouldn’t have to surrender their fundamental rights to a popular plebiscite,” Olson told reporters at a May 27 news conference. “People should not have to beg to be treated equally or wait for decades for popular approval to be treated equally.”
“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum,” said Boies, Olson’s rival in Bush v. Gore in 2000. “But we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution. Every American has a right to full equality under the law. Same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. Any alternative is separate and unequal and relegates gays and lesbians to a second-class status.”
Asked about what LGBT legal groups consider the “ill-timing” of the case, with its serious consequences if they lose, Olson said they have thoroughly studied the case, they’re constitutional experts who know what they’re doing, and they don’t intend to fail the same-sex couples.
“We are not going to say to them, ‘Why don’t you wait for another 10 years or 15 years?’ We can’t say that to them. We think they’re right, we think their constitutional rights are being denied, and we’re going to help them achieve that equality.”
Noting his association with the conservative Federalist Society, Frontiers in L.A. asked Olson about his motives in taking the case.
“I don't think I’ve ever been part of any organization that was anti-gay or felt that a group was not entitled to equal rights,” Olson said. He is with the Los Angeles-based law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, which has a strong LGBT group. “I hope people don’t suspect my motives; I feel very strongly that this is the right position—the right position for America. I hope people will believe me.”
Boies said Olson was “warm” and “committed in his heart and soul to equality.”
In a follow-up interview with Frontiers, Olson said he never supported or endorsed the federal marriage amendment or Colorado Amendment 2, as some have suggested. Olson also said he would not discuss how the case is being funded, only that both law firms are contributing. He said they think they have the five necessary Supreme Court votes based on the outcome of 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws.
When Frontiers noted that one blogger said that “Ted Freaking Olson is now better on marriage equality than Barack Obama,” Olson laughed.
“Well, I think that’s good,” Olson said. “To be serious for a moment, one of the reasons why David Boies—for whom I have the most enormous respect—and I are working together on this is to send that kind of a signal: That it isn’t a political thing. It is not a Republican or Democratic or liberal or conservative thing; it’s an American thing. And it’s equality, and I think … what we were both hoping to do is that we would make it easier for other people, including politicians, to get out of the corner and come out and say, ‘This is the right thing to do. And if David Boies and Ted Olson can come together to do it, then we can too. What’s our excuse for not taking a position?’ And I hope we can have that kind of an effect.”
Asked if he thinks sexual orientation is innate or a choice, Olson said he had not really thought about it, but his clients and co-workers say it is a matter of genetics. “What I think fundamentally is that an individual’s sexual orientation should not be the standard by which rights are given or withheld. And however that sexual orientation comes about is irrelevant from that standpoint. We shouldn’t go examining that sort of thing and making that the standard—the gate by which people pass through in order to have the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or the freedom to marry.”
Olson looks at gays as individuals, not as a minority. “I have a difficult time bunching people up in groups and passing out rights or privileges according to groups. The Constitution speaks of the rights of individuals—all of us have these individual rights to due process and equal protection. And whether a person is alone or a part of a community, that individual is entitled to our constitutional protections.”
Asked why he took the case, Olson said, “I’ve always been of the view that we don’t discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. We all have friends and family—I don’t have a family member who’s gay—but we all have friends and co-workers and neighbors and so forth [who are gay], and they are citizens and they are our friends and they should be treated equally. And we have an obligation to stand up for them.”
Follow AFER on Facebook here.
Enjoy:
Republished here without permission.
Many in the LGBT community were stunned at the news that Ted Olson, a famous conservative and the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, was joining forces with equally famous liberal attorney David Boies to bring a marriage-equality case in federal court.
Olson was asked to represent two same-sex couples by openly gay political consultant Chad Griffin, who formed a new group—American Foundation for Equal Rights—to support the endeavor.
The case, filed May 26 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, asks the federal courts to strike down Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and it asks for an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8.
“We’re going to court because people shouldn’t have to surrender their fundamental rights to a popular plebiscite,” Olson told reporters at a May 27 news conference. “People should not have to beg to be treated equally or wait for decades for popular approval to be treated equally.”
“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum,” said Boies, Olson’s rival in Bush v. Gore in 2000. “But we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution. Every American has a right to full equality under the law. Same-sex couples are entitled to the same marriage rights as straight couples. Any alternative is separate and unequal and relegates gays and lesbians to a second-class status.”
Asked about what LGBT legal groups consider the “ill-timing” of the case, with its serious consequences if they lose, Olson said they have thoroughly studied the case, they’re constitutional experts who know what they’re doing, and they don’t intend to fail the same-sex couples.
“We are not going to say to them, ‘Why don’t you wait for another 10 years or 15 years?’ We can’t say that to them. We think they’re right, we think their constitutional rights are being denied, and we’re going to help them achieve that equality.”
Noting his association with the conservative Federalist Society, Frontiers in L.A. asked Olson about his motives in taking the case.
“I don't think I’ve ever been part of any organization that was anti-gay or felt that a group was not entitled to equal rights,” Olson said. He is with the Los Angeles-based law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, which has a strong LGBT group. “I hope people don’t suspect my motives; I feel very strongly that this is the right position—the right position for America. I hope people will believe me.”
Boies said Olson was “warm” and “committed in his heart and soul to equality.”
In a follow-up interview with Frontiers, Olson said he never supported or endorsed the federal marriage amendment or Colorado Amendment 2, as some have suggested. Olson also said he would not discuss how the case is being funded, only that both law firms are contributing. He said they think they have the five necessary Supreme Court votes based on the outcome of 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws.
When Frontiers noted that one blogger said that “Ted Freaking Olson is now better on marriage equality than Barack Obama,” Olson laughed.
“Well, I think that’s good,” Olson said. “To be serious for a moment, one of the reasons why David Boies—for whom I have the most enormous respect—and I are working together on this is to send that kind of a signal: That it isn’t a political thing. It is not a Republican or Democratic or liberal or conservative thing; it’s an American thing. And it’s equality, and I think … what we were both hoping to do is that we would make it easier for other people, including politicians, to get out of the corner and come out and say, ‘This is the right thing to do. And if David Boies and Ted Olson can come together to do it, then we can too. What’s our excuse for not taking a position?’ And I hope we can have that kind of an effect.”
Asked if he thinks sexual orientation is innate or a choice, Olson said he had not really thought about it, but his clients and co-workers say it is a matter of genetics. “What I think fundamentally is that an individual’s sexual orientation should not be the standard by which rights are given or withheld. And however that sexual orientation comes about is irrelevant from that standpoint. We shouldn’t go examining that sort of thing and making that the standard—the gate by which people pass through in order to have the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or the freedom to marry.”
Olson looks at gays as individuals, not as a minority. “I have a difficult time bunching people up in groups and passing out rights or privileges according to groups. The Constitution speaks of the rights of individuals—all of us have these individual rights to due process and equal protection. And whether a person is alone or a part of a community, that individual is entitled to our constitutional protections.”
Asked why he took the case, Olson said, “I’ve always been of the view that we don’t discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. We all have friends and family—I don’t have a family member who’s gay—but we all have friends and co-workers and neighbors and so forth [who are gay], and they are citizens and they are our friends and they should be treated equally. And we have an obligation to stand up for them.”
Follow AFER on Facebook here.
Enjoy:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word - I Do, You Don't | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SUBSCRIBE | FOLLOW
Posts
All Comments
