The Star Tribune reports that the Episcopalians voted in favor of a “Resolution against the Constitutional Amendment to Ban Marriage for Same-Sex Couples.”

“The Episcopal Church in Minnesota has always stood with the marginalized,” Brian N. Prior, IX Bishop of Minnesota, said in a statement following the vote. “Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, gender orientation or immigrant status, Episcopalians in Minnesota have always embraced both the Gospel mandate of love of neighbor and the Baptismal Covenant imperative to respect the dignity of every human being.”

OutFront Minnesota, a member of the Minnesotans United for All Families coalition which is working to defeat the amendment said in a Facebook message, “We can all be proud of the many communities of faith that have taken a stand with LGBT Minnesotans to make our state a place that values and welcomes all people and families.”

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the only other denomination to formally come out against the amendment. Mayflower United Church in Christ, Open Circle Church, Shir Tikvah Synagogue, Mt. Zion Temple and Jewish Community Action have also come out against the amendment, as have the non-religious communities that make up the Minnesota Atheists.

Some denominations that haven’t yet taken a stand on the issue are facing pressure.

The Minnesota Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is having an annual week-long meeting with Minnesota’s Roman Catholic Bishops as part of a 35-year dialogue on issues of mutual interest, but one group is calling on the MELCA to speak out against the Catholic church’s involvement in opposing LGBT rights.

The Rainbow Sash Movement, a group of Catholic working to change the church’s attitude toward LGBT people, released a statement today calling on the MELCA to distance itself from the Catholic church on the same-sex marriage issue.

“We are calling on the Evangelical Bishops to condemn the public aspirations of the Catholic Bishops to promote homophobia as an acceptable behavior when it comes to the legitimate aspirations of GLBT people seeking equality in the state of Minnesota,” the group said. “Not to do so might be seen as a sign of subliminal agreement and support for the Catholic Bishops opposition to Gay Marriage.”

Archbishop John Nienstedt sent a letter to every priest in the state at the start of October urging them to put every Catholic church in Minnesota to work passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“It is imperative that we marshal our resources to educate the faithful about the Church’s teachings on these matters, and to vigorously organize and support a grass roots effort to get out the vote to support the passage of the amendment,” the letter read. It went out on Oct. 4 to every priest in the state.

The archbishop said it wants priests in every parish to identify a “church captain” in order to create an “ad hoc committee” in every church in the state. The “church captain” is a component of the Schubert Flint strategy used in 2008′s divisive Proposition 8 battle in California.

The strategy mirrors a similar one used by conservative Christians in California to pass Proposition 8 and end marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Schubert Flint was a public affairs firm at the heart of California’s successful push by conservative Christians to repeal marriage rights for that state’s same-sex couples. In a post-mortem, the firm wrote about it’s use of church captains:

“We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools.”

Schubert Flint has been active in Minnesota, in particular during the 2010 gubernatorial election when it created a series of ads attacking DFL and Independence Party candidates for their support of rights for same-sex couples.

According to Nienstedt’s letter, the church captains will be organized by the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic church, which will in turn report to the Minnesota for Marriage coalition for statewide efforts. Minnesota for Marriage is made up of the Minnesota Family Council, MCC and the National Organization for Marriage.

“A major issues will be placed before the State of Minnesota in the November 2012 election. a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Nienstedt wrote. “The sanctity of marriage and vital role of the family is at stake. It is a firmly-held teaching of our church that a marriage is a union of a husband and a wife, and that they together are the ones suited to be a father and a mother.”

He added, “To define it otherwise is a detriment to the common good of society.”

Here’s the full letter from Nienstedt:

nienstedtletter

But according to public records, members of the pro-amendment coalition, including the Minnesota Family Council and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, have greatly outspent LGBT groups in the five years of lobbying for the amendment.

Minnesota for Marriage claims fundraising disadvantage
Each member of the coalition supporting the amendment has claimed underdog status in recent months.

Chuck Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage, told the St. Cloud Times earlier this month that coalition members “expect to be outspent.”

Darrell elaborated in an August interview with Pastor Brad Brandon on KKMS.

“One of the problems we see is that the other side through Hollywood connections and everything else under the sun are going to raise a ton of money. I don’t think we can outraise them,” Darrell said. ”It’s absolutely important that people get involved because the only way to counter the money that is going to be spent on the other side.”

John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and chair of Minnesota for Marriage sent an email to supporters several weeks ago warning that “Hollywood” and “centers of popular culture” would be outspending the pro-amendment campaign.

The Minnesota Catholic Conference (MCC), another member of the Minnesota for Marriage coalition, also warned that they would be outspent.

“Will the campaign be easy? No. We will be vastly outspent and there will be many cultural forces working against us,” the group wrote on its blog. ”They will try to make us think that we are swimming against the tide of history. They will call us names for defending the important institution of marriage. But, we must stand together.”

Amendment supporters spent three times as much through PACs
In the previous five years, groups pushing for the amendment marriage amendment spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect sympathetic legislators. 

According to documents filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, Minnesota for Marriage spent $341,928 from its political action committee (PAC) promoting the ballot measure in Minnesota since 2005.

OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, spent $95,574 from its PAC on LGBT issues, including opposition to the amendment since 2005. Project 515, which has lobbied to change the 515 Minnesota laws that discriminate against same-sex couples spent $17,850 from its PAC since they were founded in 2008.

The pro-LGBT groups together spent just $115,424, or about one-third of what Minnesota for Marriage spent.

Minnesota for Marriage groups spent $1.12 million on lobbying
All sides of the debate have spent big money lobbying the legislature as well. While the campaign finance board’s lobbying summaries don’t list the amounts of money spent on specific issues, they do provide annual estimates of lobbying expenditures.

Outfront spent $496,658 since 2005 on a range of issues including anti-bullying laws and domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, but also in opposition to the amendment. In addition, Project 515 lobbied for bills that would equalize Minnesota laws for same-sex couples including end of life matters and hospital visitation. Together the two group spent a sizable amount of money: $616,658.

Since 2005, the Minnesota Family Council has spent $194,000 on lobbying. The group has lobbied heavily in favor of the amendment but also has lobbied in opposition to anti-bullying laws, gambling, medical marijuana, Sunday alcohol sales and abortion rights.

Minnesota for Marriage, an organization exclusively dedicated to the marriage amendment, spent $296,411. Focus on the Family came to Minnesota to lobby for the amendment as well and spent $32,538.

Between the three groups, spending was $522,949. When you add in the lobbying of the Minnesota Catholic Conference ($600,000 since 2005), that number rises to $1,122,949.

Catholic Church and National Organization for Marriage flexed ad muscle
In the advertising game, Minnesota for Marriage and the Catholic church blew LGBT groups out of the water.

During the 2010 elections, the D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage in conjunction with the Minnesota Family Council spent $709,000 on ads urging Minnesotans to support gubernatorial candidates that support the amendment banning same-sex marriage. And the Catholic Church in Minnesota spent $1.6 million on a DVD campaign just before the 2010 election that urged Catholic voters to support candidates that oppose same-sex marriage.

That 2010 ad total, $2.3 million, out-paced LGBT equality groups who spent $0 on ad campaigns during the 2010 election.

All told, the pro-amendment forces have spent $3.7 million over the last 5 years according to publicly available records. Those forces that oppose the amendment spent $740,000.

“I write with a growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage,” wrote Dolan. “Unfortunately the only response to date has been the intensification of efforts to undermine DOMA and the institution of marriage.”

Specifically, the bishops oppose a decision by Obama not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal courts.

The bishops also noted Obama’s support for foster care and adoption rights for same-sex couples, the implementation of LGBT-themed sensitivity trainings in the some federal departments and proposals to allow legally-married same-sex couples to reside in military housing for married couples.

But, the main thrust of Dolan’s letter was on DOMA.

“The Justice Department’s move, in addition to other troubling federal decisions occurring recently, prompts me yet again to register my grave concerns,” wrote Dolan. “The content of this letter reflects the strong sentiment expressed at a recent meeting by more than thirty of my brother Bishops who serve on the Administrative Committee of our episcopal conference. I know they are joined by hundreds of additional Catholic bishops throughout our nation. My observations are offered in the spirit of respectful, but frank dialogue.”

While the Catholic Church continues to vigorously oppose any relationship rights or recognition for same-sex couples, polling shows that an overwhelming majority of Catholics support either civil unions or same-sex marriage.

“The whole purpose was supposed to be a religious event, (by) showing the DVD (“Nine Days That Changed the World”) and honoring Pope John Paul II,” Basilica business manager Dwayne Weuve said. Weuve said he was involved in coordinating Gingrich’s visit, and had to ultimately cancel it.

“Once the secular media got hold of (the news that Gingrich was visiting), they turned it into a political circus, and we didn’t want to be involved in that,” Weuve explained. “It was no longer a religious event, so it just had to be canceled.”

Gingrich is expected to announce his bid for the U.S. Presidency next week, according to an interview in the National Journal’s Hotline OnCall.”

The Georgia Republican, who co-produced the documentary “Nine Days That Changed the World,” converted to Catholicism about two years ago and recently headlined the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. where he lamented that the country was facing a “crisis of secularism.”

Before the election, just 41 percent of weekly church attendees backed Obama, compared with 61 percent of infrequent attendees. Now, 57 percent of weekly churchgoers say they approve of Obama’s job performance, compared with 69 percent of infrequent churchgoers.

This really undercuts the argument that President Obama has been alienating religious voters with his pro-choice decisions. One reason why he might be getting away with this is that the campaign being run against him by pro-life groups branded him as much, much more extreme than just some guy who wanted to overturn the Mexico City policy. He had refused to support a “born alive” bill — he supported infanticide! So it’s really hard for him to live up to that image.

President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

Within hours of the news that President Barack Obama would give the commencement address to this year’s graduates of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Ind., angry opponents of the decision founded a new Website, NotreDameScandal.com, where they could register their complaints and sign a petition asking the school to “halt this travesty.”

“Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality,” reads the petition. “Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.” Within days, tens of thousands of people had signed on.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

“Virtually every media story for the first few weeks of this scandal cited our site and our petition,” said Patrick Reilly, the president and founder of the Cardinal Newman Society, in an interview with TWI. “There’s tremendous outpouring of support for the students who are opposing this outrage at Notre Dame. Some of them have said they’ll have nothing to do with Notre Dame if this goes forward.”

After eight years of only occasional disagreements with a Republican president, conservative Catholic activists have moved into the trenches to oppose Obama. They cite his repeal of the Mexico City rule, or “global gag rule” that banned providing federal money to international groups that promote or provide abortions, his stem cell compromise, and his cabinet nominees like Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-choice governor of Kansas, to argue that he is the most pro-abortion rights politician ever to ascend to the job. They are bolstered by new media outlets and organizations that did not exist at their current strength in 2000, the last time Catholics had to contend with a pro-choice president. At the same time, they’re encouraged by a series of high-profile statements from church leaders on political morality–including the 2004 declarations by bishops that they would deny communion to then-presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Pope Benedict XIV’s 2005 speech attacking the “dictatorship of relativism.” A small number of conservative groups, and a more newsworthy group of conservative bishops — 42 so far — are turning the Notre Dame speech into a watershed moment, while obscuring the fact that the president enjoys majority support from Catholics.

Reilly’s efforts have served as a window into the movement. The Cardinal Newman Society is recognized as the key advocate for conservative values at Catholic universities, but it is a relatively small organization. Reilly is one of seven employees of the group, loosely affiliated with the conservative Media Research Center, whose president L. Brent Bozell III serves on the Cardinal Newman Society’s board of directors. According to tax records filed in 2007, the organization runs on less than $1 million per year. The NotreDameScandal site itself is a modest project, using the exact same design, and same stock photos, as the Cardinal Newman Society’s own page. Nonetheless, the effort has put the group in the news and garnered more than 350,000 signatures. It’s bolstered claims that the group represents ersatz Catholic opinion, which wants Obama to cancel his speech and Father John Jenkins, president of the university, to apologize or step aside.

“I haven’t seen polling on this issue,” Reilly said, “but if you see them you have to do some parsing and ask: Are these faithful Catholics who are attending mass and living faithful to Catholic teachings? Among faithful, church-going Catholics there’s been tremendous support for our efforts. A lot of Catholic groups are dealing with the fact that Catholics across the United States have drifted and they need to take a stand.”

By defining the stakes in the Notre Dame fight, conservative Catholics are able to overcome two hurdles–the president’s popularity with Catholics nationally and Notre Dame students in particular. The piece of evidence most often cited to prove the president’s “Catholic problem” is a March 2009 Pew Research poll that revealed a steep drop in the president’s approval numbers among self-identified Catholics since the inauguration. But the poll gave the president a 59-28 favorable rating among all Catholics and a 47-41 rating among white, non-Hispanic Catholics. An April Pew poll gave the president high marks from Catholics on his handling of stem cell research, a decision that involved Catholic advisers. Obama carried Indiana in 2008 by a slim margin that included a win in St. Joseph County — which contains Notre Dame — and a win among Notre Dame students, who also picked Obama over McCain in a pre-election poll .

“Catholics are a diverse group of people,” said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Center for Religion and the Press, explaining the poll. “There’s been a decline in Obama’s numbers that’s not too far out of step with his decline overall. The rest of this, a lot of this, is internal politics between conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics.”

For Deal Hudson, the president of InsideCatholic.com, and a political guru who directed Catholic outreach for President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, that analysis missed the mark. “When you are trying to get the Catholic vote,” he said, “the first thing on the table is getting a speaking engagement at Notre Dame. I know. I’ve been there! The Obama political team did this and, I’m sure, expected some kind of backlash, but nothing like the watershed moment that this has turned into.”

The “watershed moment” has been heavily debated in Catholic magazines and web sites–World, Inside the Vatican, Catholic World News, LifeNews.net, the New Oxford Review–which have flowered over the last few years and which have aggressively covered the Obama decisions that have most upset conservative Catholics. The minor story of Georgetown covering up the monogram “IHS,” meaning “Jesus,” to make room for the staging of an Obama speech, has been aggressively covered. CNSNews.com–which, like the Cardinal Newman Center, is directed by L. Brent Bozell–published an enterprise piece asking whether the president would agree to wear the official robes at Notre Dame, since they are threaded with a prayer.

“Blogs can keep issues alive in a way that wasn’t possible before,” said George Neumayr, the editor of Catholic World Report, a conservative weekly. “The bishops are bombarded with complaints because of of the activity level of blogs and the ease with which people can contact the chancery. A bishop who’s receiving 1,000 messages is more likely to come out and at least make a statement about the most anti-Catholic president in modern history.”

The biggest problem for conservative Catholics has not been getting the Obama speech portrayed in the press as a scandal, but in distancing from some of the people trying to take ownership of the outrage. Randall Terry, the anti-abortion activist who converted to Catholicism in 2006, has moved temporarily to South Bend to mount protests against the school. Reilly, Neumayr and others accused Terry of being a trouble-maker and self-promoter whose effort–more than 30 full-time agitators, 50,000 letters to alumni that include postcards depicting dead fetuses, bringing fringe political candidate Alan Keyes to speak, and planning a rumored “alternate commencement for Notre Dame Heroes”–makes them look fringe. In an interview Terry said that American bishops were “directly responsible for Obama’s election” because they hadn’t spoken out against him politically. “The fabric of Notre Dame’s treachery was woven by American bishops,” said Terry, who also called Georgetown University “a house of political harlotry” for allowing Obama and Vice President Biden to speak there.

Terry laughs when the worries of other conservative Catholics are read back to him. “How can they delude themselves to think this war can be won in cyberspace?” he asked. “I always tell people that petitions are no more than a fundraising mechanism to gather your name and raise money from you. They’re scams. For them to say I shouldn’t be on the ground shows they are not culture warriors. If Martin Luther King had taken the advice of the Cardinal Newman Society, black people still be riding in the back of the bus.”

Catholic supporters of the president are trying to weather the storm and dispute the idea that Obama has a “Catholic problem.” Douglas Kmiec, a former Notre Dame professor and constitutional legal counsel to Ronald Reagan who endorsed Obama and published the election tract “Can A Catholic Support Him?” argued that Reagan had been met by protests when he gave his celebrated 1981 commencement speech. “No one thought,” said Kmiec, “that when Reagan came to accept his honorary degree he’d engage in a symposium where a bishop would give him the evangelium vitae on capital punishment, or the early draft of pastoral letter of American bishops on reducing nuclear weapons.”

Kmiec characterized much of the Notre Dame talk as politicized and unrepresentative of what Catholics think, especially the activity of Newt Gingrich, who became a Catholic this year.

“For Newt Gingrich to say, as a latter-day Catholic, that this president has ignored Catholic issues, means that he needs to go back to adult religious education class to learn more deeply about the social justice elements that he probably missed,” Kmiec said. “The notion that this president is not in line with those sentiments is not befitting of the former speaker, who was a former scholar, and who I admire as someone who normally has creative ideas.”