“The Minnesota Marriage Minute videos are an exciting opportunity to promote a respectful dialogue about the future of marriage in Minnesota,” said John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, in a recent statement announcing the videos.

“We especially want to thank Kalley Yanta, a veteran former news anchor and devoted mother for volunteering her time to make these important videos,” said Helmberger. “We are grateful for Kalley’s faithful commitment to preserving marriage in Minnesota and for her experience and poise in presenting the various topics. We are confident that she will be well received by Minnesotans across the State.”

The first video in the series is an introduction:

Yanta launched her new project with Minnesota for Marriage on Pastor Brad Brandon’s “Word of Truth” radio show on Wednesday.

“This is a big deal,” she said of the anti-gay marriage amendment. “People need to really pay attention to this.”

Yanta said they’ve taped 30 of the “marriage minutes” and are considering also creating radio and television spots. The Minnesota for Marriage group asked her to be the “face” of the effort, she told Brandon.

She also said she signed up for the project because of her own marriage and that fact that same-sex parents are harmful to children.

“I feel very, very grateful to have a good marriage,” Yanta told Brandon. “I want to be a part of … preserving that as our definition of marriage in Minnesota. … There are many efforts under way to tear apart the foundation of our society, which is the family.

“Thirty-one states across the nation have taken up this amendment and all have passed it, so if Minnesota doesn’t, we’d be the first not to, and that sets a precedent for the rest of the nation, and we don’t want to do that” she continued.

Yanta refuted the idea that same-sex parents can raise healthy, well-adjusted children, referring to a conversation she had with a “very prominent CEO of a major metropolitan hospital here in town,” who defended gay parenting.

“I have beg to differ with that opinion,” she said. “There are studies that are being conducted right now about how children are being raised and how that affects somebody in their psyche and in their self-esteem and in the various ways that that can affect a person being raised by either a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It’s not natural.”

Yanta also said that if the amendment doesn’t pass, Christian parents could be arrested.

“If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?” she asked rhetorically. “Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they’re teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be okay and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can’t allow this to happen.

“We all need to have courage when it comes to speaking the truth,” she continued, noting that, so far, she hasn’t received any backlash from the videos.

But while Yanta may not have received backlash, the videos have.

Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition of more than 100 groups, analyzed the images in the first video released and determined that not a single person in the video was actually from Minnesota.

“While this video is full of stock images, it is strangely lacking in real Minnesotans,” the group said on its Facebook page. “Perhaps they couldn’t find any real Minnesotans willing to support their divisive agenda?”

One image appears to have been taken by a French photographer of a French family, and another is being used on the website of an India-based health-care center.

Most of the images were purchased through low-budget stock-photo websites.

And it’s not the first time a group affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM is one of three groups that make up Minnesota for Marriage) used stock photos to misrepresent support for their cause. In 2011, the group’s New Hampshire affiliate used images from a rally featuring Barack Obama and passed them off as their own rallies.

The Minnesota for Marriage videos are not Kalley’s first foray into conservative Christian issue-oriented video production.

She has recently produced documentaries that express aimed her anti-abortion beliefs. In a November video, Yanta accuses Planned Parenthood of building “clandestine” and secretive headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota’s Midway neighborhood. The video compares the Planned Parenthood construction to the Nazis’ Auschwitz concentration camp complex.

Yanta’s video also discusses “post abortion syndrome,” a controversial notion that women experience higher rates of mental illness following an abortion. The video portrays it as a real illness, despite recent scientific research to the contrary. A study in January 2011, for instance, showed that women do not have a higher risk of mental illness after having an abortion. In fact, studies that have shown a link often have neglected to assess the mental health of the women prior to them becoming pregnant.

Yanta courted controversy in the late 1990s, when as the anchor of KSTP-TV, a Minneapolis ABC affiliate, she had to cancel a speaking engagement with a group called Concerned Citizens for Action, an anti-abortion group that would later become Pro-Life Action Ministries, an entity that Yanta has worked with for several years. The station did not say why the news anchor had to cancel the appearance, but Yanta later told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the event created the appearance of bias for the anchor.

She’s also been involved in Total Life Care Centers, a network of crisis pregnancy centers in Minnesota, many of which are state-funded despite providing information that medical experts and reproductive rights advocates have called false and misleading.

Photo: Screen shot of Kalley Yanta anchoring “Minnesota Marriage Minute: Episode 1″ (Source: minnesotaformarriage.org)

In a private speech to Minnesota’s priests last October, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said that any priest who disagreed with the church’s efforts to place a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples should remain silent. Any disagreements should be brought to him personally, he said. The Catholic Church in Minnesota has been a driving force for the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment since it passed onto the 2012 ballot last May.

Nienstedt later sent the text of that speech to priests who were unable to participate in the gathering. Someone in the church recently leaked the text to the Progressive Catholic Voice, a group working for reform within the church. On Thursday, PCV published statements condemning Nienstedt’s speech.

In the speech, Nienstedt told the priests he expects participation in getting the amendment passed from everyone within the church:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Nienstedt also noted that he’s created teams of “a priest and a married couple” to go into Catholic schools to talk about the amendment.

In a public statement, various members of Progressive Catholic Voice said the Archbishop’s direction is unbelievable.

“When I first read this letter I couldn’t believe that the Archbishop was telling priests and deacons to be silent if they were opposed to the marriage amendment,” said Paula Ruddy, parishioner at Minneapolis’ St. Boniface. “Is one’s position on whether the State constitution should be amended a matter of Church doctrine? How are Catholics to form their consciences if their pastors are not candid with them?”

Ruddy is also a member of the editorial board of the Progressive Catholic Voice.

That group’s editor, Michael Bayly, called the speech problematic.

“The Archbishop’s letter is problematic in many ways,” he said. “As a gay man, I find it particularly offensive that he can’t even bring himself to name gay and lesbian people. We’re simply a ‘minority’ seemingly out to destroy the church and civilization. Such an absurd caricature would be funny if not for the hurtful and damaging consequences to individuals, couples and families resulting from the Archbishop’s anti-marriage equality activism.”

Minnesota’s Catholic hierarchy has come under intense scrutiny over its support for the anti-gay constitutional amendment.

In the run-up to the 2010 gubernatorial election, the church sent out approximately 400,000 DVDs and mailings urging Catholics to vote for Republican Tom Emmer, the only candidate in the race who opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples and a staunch Catholic.

The campaign, paid for by an anonymous donor and produced by the Knight of Columbus, sparked protests against the church.

More recently, the Archdiocese’s lobbying wing, the Minnesota Catholic Conference, has joined with the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council to form the Minnesota for Marriage Coalition, a group dedicated to passing the amendment in November.

Photo: New Yorkers celebrate the law legalizing gay marriage (Photo: Flickr/Zach Roberts)

On Thursday morning, Gingrich penned NOM’s “Marriage Pledge,” promising to support a federal marriage amendment, which would prohibit gay and lesbian American couples from marrying; appoint an attorney general and Supreme Court justices who are outwardly opposed to same-sex marriage; appoint a commission that investigates NOM’s opponents; and attempt to nullify same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia.

Over the summer, Romney and fellow candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry signed the pledge. Ron Paul and Huntsman and declined, but NOM President Brian Brown is only going after Paul.

Earlier this week, Gingrich sent a statement of support for the perhaps even more controversial “Marriage Vow” created by Iowa’s Family Leader, an affiliate of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. He did not sign the 14-point pledge, which at one point including the statement:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

This summer, Bachmann and Santorum signed the Family Leader’s vow while it still included this point about slavery; Perry signed it after the passage was removed due to public outrage.

Though Gingrich did not put his signature to this particular pledge, he did promise that, as president:

I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions, especially in the military. I will also aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal and state courts. I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman. I will support all efforts to reform promptly any uneconomic or anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy. I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.

Watch Ron Paul explain why he does not support a Federal Marriage Amendment at the Family Leader’s Thanksgiving Forum:

The Human Rights Campaign has pointed out the irony of the National Organization for Marriage praising Gingrich as a “marriage champion,” considering the former speaker of the House has been married three times, and it is public knowledge that he has cheated on previous spouses.

Photo: Newt Gingrich (Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

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)

Washington state Rep. Jim Moeller (D-Vancouver), who is openly gay, announced the upcoming legislation Thursday, reports The Columbian

From the Columbian:

Washington has one of the most sweeping domestic partnership laws in the nation. But gay marriage legislation has failed to pass repeatedly, most recently in the 2011 session, when a bill Moeller co-sponsored with state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, failed to come to a vote. Moeller and Murray are among the Legislature’s openly gay members.

Moeller said he’s optimistic that the 2012 bill will make it into law.

“Our objective is to strengthen the social and legal protections for average, mainstream Washington families — the men, women and their children who make their homes in our communities and neighborhoods,” he said.

He emphasized that the legislation will protect the rights of clergy and religious institutions to determine for whom to perform marriage ceremonies and which marriages to recognize.

Washington’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It survived a legal challenge when the Washington Supreme Court upheld it in 2006.

But times have changed, and support for gay marriage is growing nationwide, Moeller said. “Four years ago, there were only a couple of states that actually offered marriage equality. Now there are six.”

Thursday marked another noteworthy day for same-sex marriage supporters, as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which would allow all legally-married couples to access federal benefits.

National Organization for Marriage made $721,708 in independent expenditures which was 31 percent of all independent expenditures in Iowa in 2010. NOM was the 2nd highest single spender in the 2010 election cycle in Iowa, spending almost double that of Fair Courts for Us, a campaign that supported retaining the judges. That group spent $423,767.

NOM was joined by American Family Association Action which chipped in $171,225. The AFA is listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Family Research Council Action also pitched in $55,997 and is also listed as a hate group by the SPLC. Religious right figurehead Gary Bauer contributed to the campaign as well through his Campaign for Working Families which gave $100,000 to the cause. Iowa Family Policy Center Action gave $10,178. That PAC is affiliated with the Family Leader and Bob Vander Plaats.

These groups are back in Iowa in 2011 and have begun spending in support of Republican Cindy Golding who opposes civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. Golding is facing of with Democrat Liz Mathis in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Swati Dandekar who was appointed to the Iowa Utilities Board. The Democrats’ 26-24 majority in the Senate hinges on the election, and

Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) told AP on Tuesday that amending the constitution would be a lengthy process, and he would rather the state Legislature focus on the repeal bill.

From AP:

Bates said he did not want to risk having lawmakers choosing between two measures: the bill and a constitutional amendment.

“It would complicate the decision for legislators if there was another alternative out there,” he said.

The legislative process seems the appropriate way to decide the issue, he said. If a constitutional amendment is used, millions of dollars in out-of-state money would flow into New Hampshire on both sides of the issue, he said.

“I don’t think that’s the way people want it decided,” he said.

Bates’ legislation calling for a marriage-equality repeal moved forward last week, receiving a favorable vote by the House Judiciary Committee.

The National Organization for Marriage’s New Hampshire campaign has attempted to show that a majority of New Hampshirites support repealing same-sex marriage by using manipulated photos of large crowds unrelated to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. However, a poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire last month showed proponents of repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire are outnumbered 2 to 1.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has promised to veto the repeal law if it passes next year.

At a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H., last Friday, GOP presidential contender Rick Perry endorsed the marriage-equality repeal.

Perry was quoted by Reuters:

“I applaud those legislators in New Hampshire who are working to defend marriage as an institution between one man and one woman,” Perry said, adding that he supported the “sanctity of traditional marriage.”

In a blogpost titled “The Great Photo ‘Controversy,’” NOM President Brian Brown addressed the Flickr photo used, but not the photo originally credited to Reuters photographer Jim Young. Brown’s defense for using the public domain photo of a rally for Barack Obama in Ohio in 2008 rather than a photo related to repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire in 2012 was that it “symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort.”

A spokesperson from Reuters told The American Independent that Reuters is currently looking into the matter and investigating whether NOM actually purchased the photo or was otherwise given permission to use it. NOM has not responded to TAI’s .requests for comment.

Not only did Brown not address the Reuters photo, but he did not identify the source of the news story, which was Good As You. Instead, he credited the discovery of the altered photos to “Rachel Maddow and her friends on the left.” (Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper said NOM has been instructed never to respond to him or Good As You).

An excerpt from Brown’s blogpost:

Neither Maddow nor her friends at the Human Rights Campaign can defend imposing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire with no vote of the people. So they issue “reports” and press releases criticizing NOM over a photo collage! They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They’re upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object? It’s as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!

UPDATE: The National Organization for Marriage has since removed from its website the image that is the subject of this article.

A photo doctored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in a new campaign to overturn marriage equality in New Hampshire suggests a lack of public support for the repeal, said political commentator Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show Tuesday.

On Monday, the LGBT news blog Good As You discovered NOM used Photoshop to alter a photo taken from a 2008 rally in Columbus, Ohio.

The Obama rally photo, which, according to Good As You originated from a Nov. 3, 2008, article posted by the political action committee Upper Arlington Progressive Action*, currently exists on the homepage of NOM’s New Hampshire for Marriage website, but was manipulated to look like NOM President Brian Brown was presiding over the reportedly 60,000 people who gathered in support of Obama three years ago. Good As You also revealed another photo, taken by a Reuters photographer, which NOM altered and put on its New Hampshire website. The photo has since been removed.

A screenshot from the National Organization for Marriage's <a href="http://www.nhformarriage.com/#">New Hampshire for Marriage campaign website</a>

On Tuesday, the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee approved a GOP-backed bill that would repeal same-sex marriage in the state. In reporting the story on her show, Maddow said Good As You’s findings prove that NOM and Republican legislators are faking support for a repeal in light of recent polling data and reports that suggest most New Hampshire citizens do not want to repeal marriage equality.

“The people who want to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire are clearly out-numbered here, but not if they fake some more supporters,” Maddow said.

She then compared the doctored photo to its original, all the while narrating what the hypothetical crowd in NOM’s photo might have been saying:

“‘Who are you calling outnumbered 2 to 1? New Hampshire’s got thousands of people rallying for their lawmakers to take away existing rights.’

Unless those people are not actually there in New Hampshire cheering to take away gay people’s rights. Unless that fire-up crowd is actually at a different place, like say at a speech for then-candidate Barack Obama, in downtown Columbus, Ohio, before the 2008 election.

The people watching him that day in Columbus had no idea through the magic of uncredited, anti-gay Photoshopping, they would become part of a campaign against gay rights in a state 600 miles away in 2011. … The National Organization for Marriage is just making it up. They in the Republicans in the New Hampshire Legislature do not actually have popular support to take a nice picture of for taking away marriage rights currently enjoyed in New Hampshire.

So because they don’t have it, they are faking it instead. Caught you.”

Watch the video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The National Organization for Marriage was not immediately available for comment and has not made any mention of the doctored photo on its constantly updated blog. The subject of NOM’s latest blogpost is about how New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch “lied to the people.”

Correction: TAI previously reported (and attributed to Talking Points Memo) that the Obama rally photo featured on Maddow’s show was taken by Reuters. In fact, a different photo of another Obama rally, in St. Louis, produced by Reuters, was also modified and used by NOM for the same website. Both photos have since been removed from the New Hampshire for Marriage website.