Photo: Wikipedia

One day after The American Independent released an analysis of the National Organization for Marriage’s recently reported finances from 2010, which reveal that last year the organization spent more than $1 million than it earned, NOM President Brian Brown emailed supporters asking for help covering what he terms a “looming shortfall.”

In the email, which is reproduced on NOM’s blog, Brown informs supporters that a “generous donor” has pledged to match all donations through the end of 2012 up to $1 million:

As 2011 draws to a close, everyone at the National Organization for Marriage is excited about the election year ahead, which we believe will be full of huge victories for traditional marriage.

But the problem is NOM does not have the funds to accomplish everything we need to do…we are facing a budget shortfall at the exact wrong time.

Without the cash to cover the budget shortfall, Brown explains that NOM will have to pick and choose in which states it will campaign and lobby against same-sex marriage. Brown asks where NOM should make cuts:

• Should I abandon a state like Maryland, New Jersey or Rhode Island, where marriage is under fire?
• Should I scale back our efforts to repeal same-sex marriage in a state like Iowa, New Hampshire or New York?
• Should I stop our Washington-based lobbying efforts to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (there is new legislation to repeal DOMA) and just hope for the best?
• Should I scale back our plans for the presidential election, letting President Obama off the hook for the lies he will tell on the campaign trail?

Obviously, I don’t want to do any of that!

This week the Human Rights Campaign reacted to NOM’s income returns for 2010, expressing surprise that the majority of NOM’s funding last year came from just two individual donors and that the organization reported a $1.2 million budget shortage.

“This is extremely unusual – that practically the entire budget of a $9 million national organization is funded by five mysterious individuals or entities,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese in post on HRC’s project NOM Exposed. “We can only conclude that NOM’s claim to being a grassroots organization representing thousands is phony. Tax returns don’t lie. NOM speaks for a few wealthy anti-LGBT donors and does not speak for the majority of Americans who support marriage equality.”

“NOM’s tax filing shows an organization that’s struggling to pay its own bills,” added HRC’s Campaign Media Director Kevin Nix. “How can a group in so much debt in 2010 so quickly turn around a year later and claim it’s on track to have a $20 million banner year?”

National for Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown speaks to a crowd during NOM’s 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour, July 27, 2010 (Photo: Flickr/Lost Albatross).

In 2010, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a tax-exempt nonprofit trying to thwart the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the U.S., reported the highest individual donations it has received since its inception in 2007, according to NOM’s most recent income disclosures to the Internal Revenue Service, recently obtained by The American Independent. Per NOM’s numbers, just two individuals contributed more than $6 million to the organization’s political arm – accounting for about two-thirds of NOM’s 2010 revenue, while single donations below $5,000 covered only 8 percent of reported revenue.

This revelation is not extraordinary for NOM, whose existence from the very beginning has been dependent upon large contributions from a small pool of big-money, mostly anonymous donors. But what’s different about this past funding cycle is how much narrower the margin is between $100 contributions and $1 million contributions. And based on NOM’s annual financial reporting to the IRS over the past four years, it appears as though that gap has narrowed over time.

In fiscal year 2009, NOM’s contributions above $5,000 made up about 78 percent of all the contributions received, according to its 2009 Form 990 (PDF). One year later, contributions above $5,000 made up roughly 92 percent of NOM’s contributions, which in turn represented the majority of NOM’s total revenue for that year. The very nature of NOM’s funding structure has made critics chide its self-description as a “grassroots organization.”

Since the very beginning, NOM has fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing the names of donors specifically and its financial records generally. The group is embroiled in various legal battles in different states (recently in Minnesota) to avoid disclosure of its political campaign records.

A closer look into the organization’s federally mandated financial disclosures (embedded below) reveal other discrepancies. TAI contacted NOM for comments and clarifications – as we have on many occasions in the past – but the organization declined to respond.

Vague reporting

On July 22, former NOM board chair Maggie Gallagher sent TAI an email in response to a question for a story about NOM’s fundraising. “Nom raised and spent $13 million last year,” Gallagher wrote, referring to 2010. She also told TAI that NOM’s projected revenues for 2011 is close to $20 million. “Our fundraising target evolve [sic] as our needs evolve, which is partly a result of our goals, and partly what we need to respond to pro-SSM [same-sex marriage] goals.”

But according to what NOM reported to the IRS for 2010, the organization claims it raised about $9.6 million and spent about $10.7 million.

TAI questioned Gallagher, via email, about the discrepancy between her quote and what is listed in NOM’s 990, but Gallagher declined to respond.

NOM reported spending large chunks of its budget on advertising and promotion ($3 million); employees’ wages, benefits, and taxes ($1.2 million); and on grants and assistance to other organizations ($600,000).

But the largest portion – $4 million, or 38 percent of NOM’s expenditures in fiscal year 2010 – was classified on its federal tax form as “other.”

NOM’s treasurer, Neil Corkery, described its general expenses on the form this way: “The Organization developed and distributed via radio, television, mail, email, telephone, and the world-wide web, a series of advertising and outreach promoting traditional marriage.”

What NOM reported spending on “legal” ($313,746) and “political expenditures” ($206,509) are surprisingly small, given that in 2010 the organization participated in several lawsuits and state-based political campaigns. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) shows that in 2010, NOM was involved in at least six different federal lawsuits. NOM has also set up political action committees in various states throughout the country. Last month TAI reported that NOM was one of the top political spenders in Iowa’s 2010 election cycle, making more than $721,000 in independent expenditures.

What NOM did report was contributing to the political campaigns of D.C. Council candidates Delano Hunter ($450) and Anthony Motley ($950); D.C. mayoral candidate Leo Alexander ($1,950); New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate John Stephen ($1,000); and a political action committee for Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli ($2,179). (Only Cuccinelli was successful.) Additionally, the organization reported spending the majority of its political expenditures — $200,000 — on its California-based political action committee.

NOM reported giving grants – ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 – to 11 organizations dedicated to preventing the legalization for same-sex marriage. Two of the donations were for organizations affiliated with NOM: Stand for Marriage DC, a PAC that shares NOM’s mailing address and was created to reverse the legalization of gay marriage in the nation’s capital, and a $200,000 grant to its California PAC (so either NOM gave two separate $200,000 payments to the PAC, or it recorded it twice).

Other grant beneficiaries: American Principles Project, Proposition 8 Legal Defense, Family Research Council Action, Stand for Marriage Maine, Education for All, Catholic Vote Action, Family Policy West Virginia, Indiana Family Action, and Minnesota Family Action.

About 96 percent of NOM’s total revenue came from donations. Of the remaining $368,513, $139 reportedly came from investment income; the rest was attributed to “other revenue.”

In 2010 the organization had a 17-member staff and no volunteers, and yet only four are listed as being paid: president Brian Brown ($212,500), then-board chair Gallagher ($152,500), treasurer Corkery ($25,000), and Jennifer Morse ($116,667). Morse is listed on the form as simply “employee,” but she is actually the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which is a project of NOM’s 501(c)3, the NOM Education Fund – though Morse’s name does not appear on the Form 990 for this fund. Additionally, the Ruth Institute is a separate entity with its own 501(c)3 status. In the Ruth Institute’s 2009 Form 990, Morse was listed as nonsalaried, but TAI has not seen Ruth’s disclosures for 2010.

Who funds NOM and its activities?

Under IRS rules regarding nonprofit entities with 501(c)3 and (c)4 status, all donations above $5,000 must be disclosed. Of the 22 contributions NOM’s (c)4 was obligated to list, all but five were greater than $5,000.

The top five contributions to the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.:

1. $3,416,000
2. $2,940,000
3. $750,000
4. $600,000
5. $400,000

NOM regularly sends out fundraising emails and mailers – usually addressed “Dear Marriage Supporter” – asking for donations of $5, $10, $100, maybe $1,000. Occasionally, NOM will offer to match donations, thanks to a generous million-dollar donor. The Donate! page on NOM’s website includes the following disclaimer:

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status [this is a typo for CNC status – “currently not collective"], are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

Back in July, Gallagher told TAI that NOM has 50,000 donors. But many of NOM’s critics believe the organization is funded by a few wealthy donors.

“The National Organization for Marriage is primarily a shell group that exists to funnel funding from secret anti-gay donors,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a national campaign started in 2003 whose mission is to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples nationwide. “[NOM] undermines and tries to overturn campaign finance and disclosure laws in states all over the country. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.”

In September 2010, The Washington Independent, TAI’s predecessor, reported that Catholic charity group the Knights of Columbus donated $1.4 million to NOM in 2009, an amount that did not appear of NOM’s Form 990.

Concerns about NOM’s secretive nature led to the launch of Nom Exposed, a project developed by the D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign and the California-based progressive alliance called the Courage Campaign.

Courage Campaign founder and President Rick Jacobs told TAI that the Courage Campaign and HRC trailed NOM on its summer 2010 “One Man, One Woman” bus tour across the eastern United States to protest same-sex marriage, and he said that many times the counter-protesters outnumbered NOM’s protesters.

“Most of the time they actually just had one man and one woman show up,” Jacobs said.

Perhaps the man who trusts NOM the least is Fred Karger – least known for his long-shot GOP presidential campaign as the first openly gay candidate, but best known for exposing the Mormon Church’s extensive financial involvement in California’s Proposition 8 campaign that overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008.

After obtaining classified Mormon documents from an anonymous source, Karger has maintained his belief that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel money for political campaigns against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ever since, Karger has been tailing NOM’s every move – ready to file a complaint each time it funds a political campaign and fails to register or disclose its donors.

This year Karger started hounding NOM for its 990s a month before they were due. He told TAI that in late October he sent one of his campaign staffers to NOM’s D.C. headquarters on K Street, who came back empty-handed. He then mailed an accusatory letter to recently named NOM chairman John Eastman, which soured the staffer’s ability to collect the forms on a subsequent visit to NOM’s office on Nov. 16.

(TAI first visited NOM’s D.C. office looking for its 2010 990s in early November and was told by executive assistant Paul Bothwell that the forms were due to the IRS on Nov. 15 and would be published on NOM’s website. On Dec. 2, TAI returned to NOM’s office, and Bothwell promptly printed out the records. The forms indicate that NOM will not be making the records available online.)

Karger, who launched an ethics investigation against NOM in California and in Maine and closely tracks the group’s legal cases, told TAI that based on NOM’s legal activities alone, he suspects the organization’s budget is higher than what they are reporting.

Though Karger still believes that the Mormon Church is in league with NOM, Jacobs said he thinks it’s unlikely, due to all the attention and scrutiny the Mormon church faced after Proposition 8.

“I would be very surprised if the Mormon Church gives anymore,” Jacobs told TAI. “I think they’re done.”

(Earlier this year TAI was told by a documentary filmmaker covering Maine’s gay-marriage battle in 2009 – which NOM was involved in – that Mormon money had been promised but not delivered to the campaign trying to ban same-sex marriage.)

Wolfson said he believes the “Roman Catholic hierarchy” is NOM’s primary funding source.

TAI contacted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the LDS church – neither organization responded to requests for comment.

Over the years, NOM has received extensive funding from evangelical Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, and NOM Exposed has linked NOM to the anti-gay-marriage grant-making groups the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Arlington Group.

NOM’s charitable arm

In 2010, the NOM Education Fund reported raising about $1.3 million and spending $1.4 million. Eight anonymous contributions were reported – ranging from $30,000 to $500,000 – for a total of about $971,000 – 75 percent of the NOM Education Fund’s total reported contributions that year.

The group reported spending its money primarily on grants to anti-same-sex-marriage organizations ($345,733), including Stand for Marriage DC, the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, and the Iowa Family Policy Center; fundraising ($153,693); and “other expenses” ($994,793).

Groups with 501(c)3 status are, under IRS rules, prohibited from explicitly endorsing candidates for public office. Last year, The Washington Independent reported that the Ruth Institute’s President Jennifer Morse was publicly endorsing unsuccessful California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, in potential violation of IRS rules.

No specific mention is made of the Ruth Institute in the NOM Education Fund’s disclosure to the IRS; though, as TAI noted above, NOM’s 501 (c) 4 reported Morse’s salary as an organizational expense.

The future of NOM

Earlier this year, in supporter emails, on its blog, and in advertisements, NOM appeared to be energized by a last-minute derailment of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. However, the passage of marriage equality in New York, the overturning of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, NOM President Brian Brown being laughed at for his arguments against gay marriage on a Fox show, and the revelation that NOM doctored and misrepresented images to inflate opposition to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire have resulted in more urgent messages from the NOM camp.

A fundraising email from Brown from early November begins:

Dear Marriage Supporter, I’m beginning to worry.

We have won victory after victory for marriage. California. Maine. Maryland. Rhode Island. Gay marriage is inevitable? Apparently, voters across America missed that memo. But NOM is fighting on so many fronts right now our resources are being spread thin. [Emphasis NOM's.]

Then Brown accuses the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” of being supported by “massive contributions from the usual Hollywood celebrities, huge foundations and wealthy billionaires. What do we have? Millions of Americans just like you, friend.” [Emphasis NOM's.]

It’s essentially the same argument that the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” use against NOM. HRC, the country’s largest LGBT-rights lobby group, in fiscal year 2009 (PDF) reported $21.4 million in contributions and grants to its political arm. The organization reported 256 contributions above $5,000 – most of them below $20,000.

“There certainly are people opposed to the freedom to marry [for gay and lesbian couples], but they are not the people that support NOM.” Wolfson said. “NOM is supported by a small group of secret donors; we’ve seen no evidence o the contrary. And they are a threat. Not so much NOM, but the anti-gay founders behind NOM. Money still is power.”

Karger told TAI he wants the federal government to investigate NOM’s finances and political activities. Though the political activist himself could be subject to scrutiny, depending on who occupies the White House in 2012. This summer, GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum signed NOM’s “Marriage Pledge,” which calls for the creation of a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters.”

“I’ve called for an investigation of NOM from day one,” Karger said. “And I’ll continue – until I’m gone – to call for an investigation. We need the federal government to look into their activities.”

NOM 990 2010 501c4

NOM 990 2010 501c3

(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons/AMagill)

Gallagher founded NOM in 2007 as the battle over extending marriage rights to gay couples heated up in statehouses and on voter ballots around the country. Gallagher has been a lightning rod figure. She has appeared repeatedly to testify on marriage on Capitol Hill and has written on the subject for many of the nation’s top news publications. Gallagher has a degree in religious studies from Yale. She often speaks in condemnatory ways about homosexuality, in the eyes of many stretching science and mixing it with religious beliefs.

She has, for example, cited studies inaccurately to make the case that children being brought up by gay couples face increased risks of abuse and has mostly ignored or downplayed research that has found children raised by gay parents flourish according to all the current measures by which social scientists rate the health and happiness of children. She has called homosexuality an “unfortunate thing” and “at minimum, a sexual dysfunction.”

Gallagher’s testimony at a hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act this spring drew attention for her conciliatory tone. Detractors suggested it was a sharp break with much of her writing and public speaking.

NOM has enjoyed major successes in battling pro-gay marriage legislation around the country and has also famously skirted financial disclosure laws, saying it aims to protect its donors from the reprisals of gay activists. Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, now struggling financially, has heavily supported NOM efforts.

Early reports suggest Eastman will be a strong replacement for Gallagher and may be better prepared for the legal wrangling to come as the federal Defense of Marriage Act hangs in the balance, placed into a sort of legal limbo after the Obama Justice Department announced it would no longer fight court challenges to the law, which it views as unconstitutional.

The release from NOM, announcing the change:

Washington, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced today that John Eastman, a distinguished Constitutional law scholar, is taking on the role of Chairman of the Board for NOM.

Dr. John Eastman is the former Dean of Chapman University Law School in California and is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm associated with the Claremont Institute. He has participated in over 50 cases in our nation’s highest courts, including such landmark cases as the Pledge of Allegiance case, the Boy Scouts of America case, the Ohio school vouchers case, the Kelo case involving property takings, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act case. Dr. Eastman is a former clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in government and political philosophy from Claremont Graduate School.

Brian Brown, President of NOM, stated, “John Eastman is one of America’s foremost constitutional scholars and has distinguished himself as a fierce advocate for families and religious liberty. As a legal scholar, he has participated in dozens of cases before our nation’s highest courts, including the United States Supreme Court. When important constitutional principles are on the line, people frequently turn to John Eastman to advocate a conservative, pro-family position. He will be a great asset to NOM.”

John Eastman stated, “Marriage has quite correctly been described as a bedrock of civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is a critically important issue, and I’m honored to join such distinguished company on the Board of such a phenomenally effective organization as the National Organization for Marriage.”

Maggie Gallagher, the previous Chairman of the Board, stated, “My original intention in co-founding the National Organization for Marriage was to launch a politically sophisticated national activist organization to fight for the views of millions of Americans who believe that marriage is and should remain the union of husband and wife. I think it’s fair to say that NOM has been launched, and is now far more successful than even I dreamed (and I dreamed big!). I’m grateful to NOM’s President Brian Brown for leading this organization, and the addition of an eminent public intellectual like John Eastman to the NOM team is a great sign as we move forward to the battles ahead.”

“I will remain on the NOM board, and continue to work on specific projects for NOM, as well as taking on some additional outside projects I’ve long deferred, such as finishing my book Debating Same-Sex Marriage¸ which I’ve been working on for Oxford University Press with Prof. John Corvino,” Gallagher added.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Groups and key delegates of Maryland’s General Assembly that are against marriage equality have targeted churches, especially those in African-American communities, with the hope of rallying against the bill ahead of the 2012 legislative session, when the General Assembly will resume consideration of legislation that failed to come to a vote in 2011.

The IRS is firm on rules preventing churches from endorsing specific candidates during elections. But when it comes to promoting legislation, the law reads much more loosely. In essence, religious leaders are at liberty to preach from the pulpit in favor or in opposition to political issues and upcoming legislation so long as specific candidates are not endorsed.

Ira C. Lupu, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, said the law is written to ensure limitations and fairness among organizations with tax-exempt status, like churches.

“The idea is there are limitations,” Lupu told TAI. “If I want to stop Barack Obama, and I donate money, [my contribution should not be] tax-deductible. It would give [tax-exempt groups] an unfair advantage.”

But with social-issue legislation, it’s different. Lupu said that even among lawyers and law students, tax law on this issue can appear tricky, so he tries to make it simple: “Churches cannot use their resources to urge to vote for or against a particular candidate,” Lupu said. “Churches can encourage members from the pulpit to take a stand [on an issue].”

A gray area emerges, he said, if the line between endorsing a piece of legislation and endorsing a candidate pushing that particular issue is muddied. Another questionable area involving churches’ legislative activity has to do with raising money for legislative campaigns.

If a church spends a large sum of money on a referendum campaign, it can begin to dip into violation territory, said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AUSCS), a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to preserving the U.S. Constitution’s religious liberty provisions.

“In general the tax laws do allow participation in referendum campaigns,” said Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, who lives in Chevy Chase, Md. “Where a religious organization will run afoul [of the law] is if they use a ‘substantial’ amount of their overall budget.”

The word “substantial” is what the IRS uses in its tax code, a word that Lynn pointed out is not very clear. The way for tax-exempt organizations to avoid potentially violating the law is to set a limit, Lynn said, noting that AUSCS, a tax-exempt organization, only dedicates 20 percent of its budget expenses to lobbying.

Another way churches could potentially violate IRS law, Lynn said, is by selling lists of church members’ contact information to campaign committees or legislators. However, gathering the lists and giving them away is not illegal, he said, though church members might not appreciate it.

IRS spokesman Anthony Burke told TAI the law is clear. During every election cycle, the IRS puts out a press release about political activity tax-exempt organizations, which states:

Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity. Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in section 4911. This limit is generally based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000, as indicated in the table below.

However, the IRS is not clear on the lobbying rule as it relates to churches.

Even though preaching policy at the pulpit is usually legal, Lynn said he does not agree with the practice.

“I wish churches didn’t spend any money on [political activity],” he told TAI. “There is a fundamental misunderstanding on how laws are made in this country.”

In the case of same-sex marriage, Lynn said the bulk of the arguments against are based on religion, hence much of the support and lobbying comes from religious organizations.

“Historically [the argument against gay marriage] is always rooted in the interpretation of Christian biblical principle.” Lynn said. “But we don’t make laws based on our understanding on biblical principle. Martin Luther King, Jr., never endorsed a candidate from the pulpit.”

Burns, a Democrat and black pastor who has served as Baltimore County’s delegate since 1995, recently told The American Independent that he is determined to organize a massive coalition of anti-marriage-equality supporters, consisting largely of black Baptist leaders. Additionally, he is trying to drum up united opposition against another effort to pass a same-sex-marriage bill in 2012 from every black delegate and senator in the Maryland General Assembly.

“We’re working very, very hard to make sure the bill will not pass in 2012,” Burns said. “We are meeting, as we speak, to come together in force to let legislators know [if they vote to legalize marriage, they] will be under the spotlight.”

At its core, Burns’ layered plan involves coalescing all gay-marriage opponents into a single force. He told TAI that he and other delegates are working on forming a Prince George’s County Coalition and Baltimore County Coalition, legislative groups whose main goal will be to drum up support against the legislation in those two counties with large African-American populations. Burns held a press conference on this renewed effort at his Rising Sun Baptist Church last month and has another conference planned later this week.

“Last time, the religious community slept this issue, but they’re not going to sleep it this time,” Burns told TAI. “Rather than too little too late, it’s going to be so much so soon.”

Burns’ targets: blacks and churches

Toward the end of this year’s gay marriage campaign in Maryland, the black community became a focal point of the legislation, with opponents pushing the narrative that same-sex marriage advocates were co-opting the Civil Rights movement from the African-American community.

Burns said that, this time around, the strategy of rallying the churches will be intensified. He told TAI he intends to focus on black Baptist churches in Prince George’s County, as well as apostolic and Methodist churches. “Even some white churches,” he said. “We’re going to tell pastors to let their members know their delegates are down in Annapolis supporting same-sex marriage.”

But another major bullet point on Burns’ to-do list is to summon support against the marriage-equality bill from the state’s Catholic community. The first step in that direction, he said, is finding a replacement for Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, who last month was elevated to the position of a cardinal and reassigned to Rome.

“[O’Brien] was stalwart in his support against same-sex marriage,” Burns said.

Before his departure, the archbishop privately asked Gov. O’Malley not to promote the same-sex legislation when it is revived in the Legislature next year, as reported the Baltimore Sun last month after the governor’s office released O’Brien’s July 20 letter and O’Malley’s Aug. 4 response. The governor defied the archbishops’s request “not to allow your role as leader of our state to be used in allowing the debate surrounding the definition of marriage to be determined by mere political expediency” by announcing two days later that he would make legalizing same-sex marriage a legislative priority.

According to the Sun, O’Malley told O’Brien that they shared similar views on eradicating poverty, supporting a progressive income tax and opposing the death penalty, but “on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same sex couples, you and I disagree.” (O’Malley himself opposed legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for governor in 2006.)

Burns said even if the archbishop was unable to sway the governor, he did influence Catholic Marylanders. He told TAI that he has been in touch with the Catholic hierarchy in Baltimore and will be meeting with the Maryland Catholic Conference to work on finding a new archbishop who will be as outspoken against gay marriage as O’Brien was.

Blacks in the Legislature are also major targets for Burns, who said that if all of Maryland’s black senators and delegates voted against the marriage-equality bill, it would not pass.

“Same-sex marriage is anathema to our tradition,” Burns said.

Despite Burns’ focus on his African-American colleagues, he would not comment on the position of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, of which he is a member.

The Black Caucus did not include same-sex marriage among its 2011 legislative priorities (PDF). When asked if the caucus would be taking a position on same-sex marriage in 2012, Black Caucus Executive Director Deriece K. Bennett told TAI via email that that the Caucus “has not discussed any legislation for the 2012 General Session.”

At present, Burns said he is summoning the Prince George’s County and Baltimore County Coalitions against same-sex marriage. Once these legislative caucuses are formed, Burns said he will work on trying to united Maryland’s various anti-gay marriage groups, such as Protect Marriage Maryland, Marriage for Maryland (folks4md.com) and Maryland for Marriage, which is run by the National Organization for Marriage .

The strategy of targeting religious and minority groups on this issue is not exclusive to same-sex-marriage opponents.

Equality Maryland, the largest LGBT-rights group in Maryland and one of the leading groups in a coalition supporting same-sex marriage in Maryland, has stated plans to try to summon support from churches and communities with high concentrations of African-Americans, mainly in Prince George’s and Baltimore Counties.

“We plan to have a strong presence in various religious groups,” Patrick Wojahn, chair of Equality Maryland Foundation, told TAI. “We are focusing more on churches.”

Burns will be hosting a strategizing press conference at the Greater Harvest Baptist Church in Baltimore on Friday, but on Wednesday, Equality Maryland is hosting its own strategy session, billed as a cocktail event to “celebrate and honor” support already provided from O’Malley and other state leaders, something that didn’t happen earlier this year.

The event, which will be held at the Chevy Chase Town Hall in Chevy Chase, Md., at 5:30 p.m., is “a chance to celebrate the progress made in what we believe will be a victory,” Wojahn said. “We have the momentum behind us to win. We are on the right side of history.”

Overturning same-sex marriage … before it’s legalized

Though Maryland’s Legislature has not yet begun a debating same-sex marriage, Burns has already begun talking about starting a petition and collecting enough signatures to ban same-sex marriage via voter referendum.

While amending a state’s constitution to exclude marriage to straight couples has been a tactic some states — most recently Minnesota — have considered to preemptively thwart marriage- equality legislation, Maryland law doesn’t work that way. The people don’t have the power to amend the constitution; they do, however, have the power to veto legislation passed by the General Assembly. Thus, if enough signatures are collected to qualify for a referendum, Marylanders could attempt to reverse a law expanding marriage to same-sex couples.

But a few things must happen before the petition could begin gathering signatures, according to  referendum petition procedures (PDF) published by the Maryland State Board of Elections (SBOE):

• A political committee would have to be already established with the election board.
• The petition sponsor must know or anticipate the referendum question will be placed on the ballot “before money is collected or spent to support or oppose the question.”
• The 2012 bill legalizing same-sex marriage must pass.

Burns told TAI that he has not yet started gathering signatures for such a referendum — not just because it would be violating state law, but because he’s not convinced the same-sex marriage bill will pass. But, he said, he will do everything in his power to make sure it doesn’t

“The ball is in my court,” he said.

The video features Secretary Ken Salazar and includes employees from across the U.S. Department of the Interior, who share their experiences growing up as LGBT youth.

Duncan Hunter

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a long-time opponent of open service in the military for gays and lesbians, is drafting legislation, according to Army Times, that wouldn’t seek to reinstate the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy set to end this month, but would allow military personnel to voice their opposition to serving with such individuals.

Speaking with National Public Radio in February 2010, Hunter gave his reasons for opposing repeal of DADT:

… I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Its not the time to do it … [T]he folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians. …

It’s not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you’re going to let anybody no matter what preference – what sexual preference they have that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the military. …

The Hunter proposal is expected to specifically address sensitivity training that is being conducted by the military branches in preparation for the Sept. 20 repeal date of DADT.

“We’ve heard the training is really pushing the line for people who believe homosexuality is wrong on religious and personal grounds,” an aide, who asked not to be identified, told Army Times. “It is a legitimate concern, under the circumstances, with the services working on disciplinary policies for people who don’t agree with this decision.

“The military always falls in line, but that doesn’t mean that the men and women who serve in its ranks should suddenly be forced to personally accept something that is contrary to their own principles,” the aide said.

The proposal has not yet been submitted for consideration, but it is believed that if such a measure is going to be considered, it would need to be one of the first proposals viewed by Congress when it reconvenes on Sept. 7.

Hunter, who was first elected to Congress in 2008 as the successor to his 14-term father of the same name, served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the Marine Corps. He is the first Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan elected to Congress.

Since DADT was first introduced in 1993, the military has discharged more than 13,500 soldiers for being gay.

As a legislator, Mell had fought for full civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians in her home state, but the body ultimately only granted civil union benefits.

According to reporter Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times, Mell has become the first high-profile elected official in Illinois to publicly enter into a same-sex marriage. She is the the sister-in-law of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

… “Our relationship deserves marriage,” said a beaming Mell, her newly wedding-banded hand resting on Baker’s shoulder Tuesday. “That’s how I feel about it. I mean there was a time in our relationship where it just wasn’t right to call Christin my ‘partner’ or my ‘friend’ . . . or even my ‘civil-unionized partner.’ You know she’s my wife. . . . We deserve those titles, those rights.” …

The couple plans to hold a blessing ceremony as part of an Episcopal mass next week. Under Illinois law, the couple’s commitment can only be legally viewed as a civil union, which does not carry the same protections and benefits of full civil marriage.

Candidates slated to attend the The American Principles Project’s “Palmetto Freedom Forum” include Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. The three panelists doling out questions to the candidates will be DeMint, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Robert George, who is chair emeritus of NOM. George is also the founder of APP.

NOM has already attempted to influence the 2012 presidential election by asking GOP candidates to sign a pledge promising to oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples on a federal level. Perry is the most recent candidate to sign NOM’s marriage pledge, joining Bachmann, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has recently made headlines for opting out of the forum.

Cain, meanwhile, has been attacked by NOM for not signing the five-point pledge, which makes candidates promise to

• Support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage,

• Nominate federal judges that “reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution,”

• Defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “vigorously in court,”

• Establish a presidential commission to investigate reports of Americans who have been “harassed or threatened” for supporting ant-gay-marriage initiatives, and

• Try to ban same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia, which is currently legal.

Though a lot of the publicity is being associated with DeMint, George and King will also shape the debate. The stated intention of the forum is “to engage candidates in a fair and meaningful way instead of forcing sound-bite answers to complex issues.”

CEDAR RAPIDS — Whether or not the death of a young Waterloo man is eventually ruled a hate crime mattered little to the hundreds of vigil attendees who gathered in downtown Cedar Rapids Thursday night.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
~ Martin Luther King Jr. (letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963)

Andrew Harrison, of Cedar Rapids, is someone who has typically been involved with local vigils and demonstrations as an advocate of the local LGBT community. But when the Club Basix bartender learned of the brutal beating death of Marcellus Andrews, 19, and that anti-gay slurs that were reportedly a part of the incident that took Andrews’ life, Harrison felt compelled to step forward.

“I put this event on Facebook because I saw no one else was doing anything, and I was just outraged,” Harrison told The Iowa Independent Thursday night at the vigil. “I knew I couldn’t go up to Waterloo and be a part of any vigil there, and I thought we should do something here in Cedar Rapids because our community has always turned out for observances, vigils and demonstrations.

“I knew that Cedar Rapids could show our state and the nation that we’re not going to put up with bullying and taunting.”

Harrison’s quickly made Facebook event resulted in roughly 300 people converging near the Tree of the Five Seasons monument for a vigil consisting of official statements from equality advocates, prayer, moments of silence and singing of the gospel hymn, “Amazing Grace.”

Participants at the candlelight vigil for Marcellus Andrews represented at least four counties in eastern Iowa. (Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent) 

Harrison added that regardless of if law enforcement investigating Andrews’ death rule the attack a hate crime, members of the LGBT community are aware of witness reports that the man was taunted with anti-gay slurs.

“No matter what one’s sexual orientation is, or what it is perceived to be, no one should be treated that way,” he said. “No one should have to hear such things — especially not at the end of his or her life. … Whether or not it was premeditated, whether or not this was a year-long dispute as the police have said it was, there should not have been comments like that made.”

Tim and Lisa Hughes, a Cedar Rapids couple that will celebrate their 30th year of marriage next week, said they were shocked to learn of such a violent thing happening in nearby Waterloo and they were shocked to know police weren’t considering prosecuting the event as a hate crime.

“Based on what we’ve heard that was said and done, it was really shocking to know this wasn’t being looked at as a hate crime,” Lisa Hughes said. “Anytime you kill someone there is hate involved.”

The couple said they wanted to come and attend the vigil because “it is important to show tolerance and acceptance of all others regardless of their race, their color, their gender or their sexual orientation.”

“We are all people,” said Lisa, who added while motioning to those around her on the 1st Avenue Bride, “And these are all good people.”

The world we live in, said Tim, has enough war and hate. “We should celebrate love and life every chance we get.”

Several families brought their children to the observance. 

Maureen Hill, faculty adviser for the City High Gay-Straight Alliance in Iowa City brought a handful of students to the vigil after the organization’s co-president, Ruth Anne Riedl, called attention to Andrews’ death and the witness accounts. For some time the GSA has been working to raise awareness of gender-based bullying and to show young people how powerful it can be to stand up to such adversity. Before the national “It Gets Better” campaign was underway, the Iowa City students had developed T-shirts that called attention to suicide.

“I personally thought it was really powerful to come out tonight, given how much time the group has spent on the T-shirts and trying to raise awareness about how important it is to stand together and be safe,” she said. “That something like this happened in Iowa — we simply needed to come out and be here.”

Riedl, a student at City High, said she became furious when she read the reports about what happened to Andrews.

“We live in 2011,” she said. “There is no reason something like this should happen.

“It doesn’t really matter what a person’s sexual orientation is, or even if the bullying and taunting is related to sexual orientation — it’s not OK for people to make remarks against others like that. I just thought it was important to come out and stand together and send that message: It is not OK for things like this to happen. There is no reason this should have happened, and it should never happen again.”

Rev. Martha Rogers, rector for Christ Episcopal Church in Cedar Rapids, offered a prayer at the vigil and stood as a member of faith in the candlelight observance the followed on the bridge.

“As a member of the clergy, it is my honor and obligation to say that God creates us all, and we should all be treated with dignity and respect,” she said.

“A brutal death is not the way to change the world.”

While speakers made brief remarks, some closed their eyes and others wiped away tears. 

The Cedar Rapids vigil was one of several held throughout the state in memory of Andrews and as reminders for tolerance for others. Those who were unable to attend a vigil were asked to leave their porch light on Thursday night, and individuals from California to Texas and New York left notes on that event’s Facebook page that their light was glowing.

Participants in Cedar Rapids collected $300 in donations, which will be given to the Union Missionary Baptist Church Drill Squad, the Crusaders, that Andrews helped train as a captain.

Formal services for Andrews will be held this weekend.

Following public remarks, participants lined both sides of the 1st Ave Bridge. 

The memorial continued until late in the night.