Obama Campaign Opposes NC Anti-Gay Ballot Measure

President Obama visited North Carolina on Friday and his campaign issued a statement opposing the anti-gay ballot measure called Amendment One which voters will consider on the May 8 primary. As I have discussed here many times before, if passed by voters, Amendment One would have far reaching effects on all families in North Carolina, especially ones headed by same-sex couples, because it purports to only allow one kind of "domestic legal union" to be recognized by the state, and that "domestic legal union" must include a man and a woman. If the amendment were added to the state constitution, it would most definitely pass the legislative or judicial branches of government from enacting marriage equality, and would probably ban state recognition of any kind of same-sex domestic partnership. It's not clear if it would also repeal existing domestic partner statutes already existing in local jurisdictions around the state.

The text of Obama-Biden 2012's statement is:

"While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples," said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman. "That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it." 

The good news is that Obama's statement comes after other recent news about the fight against North Carolina's heterosexual supremacist Amendment One has intensified, and polling suggests a solid majority opposes the measure.

It is also very good news that the Obama camp has decided to explicitly oppose Amendment One, something LGBT activists have been asking for repeatedly.

It will be interesting to see as we get closer to the election of the campaign will take a position on any of the marriage referenda that will appear on the same ballot, in states like Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota, all of which are likely to be blue states.

Washington: Referendum 74 Final Language Set

You may recall that previously I commented about the draft language of Washington's Referendum 74, a ballot measure which seeks to overturn that state's recently enacted marriage equality law. The heterosexual supremacist Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna (who just happens to be running for Governor) had issued language which included the homophobic concept of "redefine marriage."

Happily, that original draft language was challenged and today new language was released which is more neutral:

Ballot TitleThe legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill. [10 words]
This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony. [30 words]
Ballot Measure SummaryThis bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement. [75 words]

This referendum will be one of four ballot measures involving marriage equality in November 2012. In Maine, Washington and Maryland if the voters vote YES (or APPROVE) they will be legalizing marriage equality. If they vote No they will be returning to the status quo (which is no marriage equality in those states, but comprehensive domestic partnerships in Washington). In Minnesota if the voters vote YES they will insert a ban on marriage equality in the state constitution while if they vote NO same-sex marriage will continue to be banned by statute.

Fight Against NC Anti-Gay Ballot Measure Intesifies

As you may recall, the North Carolina legislature has proposed an anti-gay constitutional amendment that will be placed before voters which would ban not only state recognition of same-sex marriage but also may ban domestic partnerships as well. What I had not maybe emphasized in my previous coverage is that this vote will occur during the statewide primary election on May 8, not the November 6 presidential election.

The specific ballot language of the anti-gay amendment that voters will see on May 8 is:

[] For [] Against
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by this State.


Of course "domestic legal union" is not defined in the text of the amendment or in North Carolina law so it will be up to judges to define it if the measure passes, but it could most definitely be construed to mean that not only same-sex marriages but opposite-sex or same-sex domestic partnerships would be banned at the state level.

Since the vote is basically 2 months from today, the opposition to the measure has accelerated, with Scott Wooledge using a front-page post on Daily Kos to highlight the polls on the measure and promote the following video, titled "Momentum:



North Carolina has long been a target of heterosexual supremacists because it is the only state in the Southern United States without a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Let's work together to make sure that North Carolina's constitution remains free of the stain of homophobic discrimination on May 9 by donating money to defeat the amendment.

Utah Legislature Kills Gay Rights Bill For 5th Year In A Row

Bad news from Utah. For the fifth year in a row a bill which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment anywhere in the state of Utah has been killed by the Mormon (and Republican) dominated Legislature. SB 51, authored by Democratic State Senator Ben McAdams, would have

prohibited discriminationincludes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discrimination in employment; prohibits political speech or activity as a basis for discrimination in employment; modifies exemptions to the Utah Fair Housing Act; includes sexual orientation and gender identity as a prohibited basis for discriminatory housing practices;

Interestingly, in the last few years the Mormon Church has dropped its opposition to statewide LGBT protections in employment and housing and several municipalities in the state have passed local ordinances which do just that.

Just to demonstrate the extreme level of ignorance about civil rights in Utah check out this quote published by the Salt Lake Tribune:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, spoke against the bill, saying that exemptions for religious organizations should be expanded to include religious people. Although existing anti-discrimination laws exempt owners of four or fewer units, Ruzicka questioned how she would be affected if she owned a 100-unit apartment complex.

"What if I was renting to singles and wanted I certain standard. I couldn’t say, ‘You’re living a homosexual lifestyle. You cant live here,’" Ruzicka said. "I think I should have the right to do so." 

McAdams said allowing bias because of a person’s religious beliefs would undermine state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination. 

"If I want to rent only to people of a certain ethnicity [because of my religious beliefs], I can’t do that. That’s discrimination," McAdams said.

It is because of religious extremists like Ruzicka that we need federal prohibitions on discrimination in housing that include sexual orientation and gender identity. McAdams makes the immediate connection that if you can allow discrimination based on religious beliefs it will soon lead to what is clearly unacceptable discrimination based on other categories.

Progressive and LGBT activists are not taking this repressive action by the Utah legislature denying equal rights to the LGBT community quietly.

Analysis of Field Poll Showing 59% Support Marriage Equality

The latest Field Poll is out and it has some encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality in California. By a margin of 25 points, 59% to 34%, California registered voters support "same-sex marriage," a jump of 7  points in support from the last Field poll taken in July 2010 which had the margin at a mere 9 points, 51% to 42%. The margin of error of these polls is ±4.5 percentage points.

Although this is very good news that the most respected polling outfit in California is showing support for marriage equality well above the majority position, it should be noted that 1) Field has a history of overstating supporting for the pro-equality side and 2) this is a poll of registered voters, which means it is essentially meaningless in predicting the outcome of a voter initiative on the measure.

First I will elaborate on my first point (Field has overestimated marriage equality support in the past). In 2008, during the fight to defeat Proposition 8 and defend California marriage equality from June 15 to November 4 (173 days) the Field poll issued 3 polls, all of which had the NO side ahead, often by significant margins. On September 19, 2008 Field said Proposition 8 was losing 55% No, 38% Yes among likely voters, On August 29, 2008 the Field Poll said Proposition 8 was losing 54% No to 40% Yes among likely voters and on its first poll on the issue on July 19, 2008 Field said that Proposition 8 was losing 51% No to 42% among likely voters. According to David Flesicher's exhaustive (and definitive) analysis of the campaign published in The Prop 8 Report, the internal polls of the No On 8 campaign NEVER had the No side above 48% of support, although their daily tracking polling did sometimes have the No side slightly ahead of the Yes side when the Undecided number would get larger. Once the "Princes" ad ran on California television for 10 days without a response Proposition 8 was ahead outside the margin of error. Field has never explained why their polling was so off on the Proposition 8 question, which ultimately passed by a margin of Yes 52.3%, No 47.7%.

My second point is to note that this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. It is true that it does not make sense to even speak about likely voters at this point, more than 8 months before the general election, but I want to clarify that there is always a difference between polling the set of all possible voters, and the results created when the subset of voters who actually go to the polls (or return their absentee ballots) and vote. However, the fact that we finally have one data point where majority support for marriage equality has been reached OUTSIDE the margin of error, bring us closer to the pre-conditions for when I would support an attempt to place a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8.

I repeat those conditions here, for completeness:

1. multiple polls separated in time of weeks or months indicating clear majority support for marriage equality among registered voters;
2. at least one million dollars in the bank to begin a campaign; and 
3. a clearly delineated, consensus-driven model of a campaign structure that is responsive to and supported by all (or nearly all) the various segments of the California LGBT  and progressive activist communities.

I would also note that the two putative (and abortive) attempts by Love Honor Cherish to repeal Proposition 8 (in 2009 and in 2011) by ballot measure did not meet ANY of these above three conditions. In fact, only one of these conditions has ever been met (Condition 2), briefly by Equality California. I suspect that by November 2012 Condition 1 will have been met.

Then again, it is not clear that a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 is necessary, thanks to the federal court case of Perry v Brown, which has declared that measure as violative of the United States Constitution and has been struck down by the two courts which have examined it, on August 4, 2010 and on February 7, 2012. Proposition 8 is currently only in effect due to a stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 16, 2010 as the heterosexual supremacists who are defending it ask for an 11-member en banc panel of that court to consider their appeal, and after that they can also appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

More comment about the new Field poll. They also ask the question about what kind of legal recognition should same-sex couples have and here the response is that now 51% support marriage equality, with another 29% supporting civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnerships, which is what California law is right now) and a mere 15% support no legal recognition for same-sex couples (See Table 3, below). Note, this 51% is not a majority position when the margin of error is considered. It's curious what the difference is between the 59% who support "allowing same- sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them" and the 51% who think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry  (when given the option of civil unions and no recognition whatsoever).

This is all great news for supporters of marriage equality and just more evidence that the heterosexual supremacists are fighting a battle that they will lose; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

An interesting poll would to also ask specifically about a Proposition 8 re-do which Field last asked in March 2009 and the results were 48% Support Repeal, 47% Support Prop 8. But this was before even the California Supreme Court had upheld Prop 8 and two federal courts had struck it down. I wonder what the Proposition 8 re-do poll numbers are now? Inquiring minds want to know.

MD: Senate Passes Marriage Equality Bill 25-22!

Woo hoo! The Maryland State Senate completed work on  HB 438, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, by passing the legislation on a 25-22 vote, sending the measure to Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley who has promised to sign it into law.

NGLTF's Executive Director Rea Carey made a statement:

“Maryland and marriage equality will certainly make a lovely couple. Maryland is the Free State, after all. To be able to share and celebrate one's love and commitment both publicly and legally is a lifelong dream for thousands of same-sex couples and their families. It’s thrilling that Maryland is poised to make this a reality by becoming the latest state to treat its families fairly. This has been a long journey of changing hearts and minds, of breaking down walls, of shining a spotlight on our common humanity. Congratulations to Equality Maryland, Marylanders for Marriage Equality and all those who have been part of the journey leading to this victory.”

By this action Maryland will likely become the 8th state to legalize marriage equality. However, as I noted earlier in a blog post, it is not clear if the law will actually go into effect January 1, 2013 due to the referendum process in Maryland.

Heterosexual supremacists have until May 31st to gather 55,736 signatures to put the measure up for a vote on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Whether same-sex couples will be able to get married will depend on the outcome of the vote.

Prop 8 Proponents Want En Banc Re-Hearing

As expected, the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 in federal court (who have now lost twice, at the federal District Court level on August 4, 2010 and before a 3-judge panel on February 7, 2012) have applied for an en banc re-hearing by a randomly selected 11-member subset of the 29-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the activie judges on the Court of Appeals must vote to agree to hear the case, and then an en banc panel of 11 judges consisting of Chief Judge Alex Kosinski and 10 randomly selected other judges will hear the case, probably issuing a ruling (if no further briefs are requested!) by the end of the summer. According to Wikipedia, at 64%, the 9th Circuit has the highest proportion of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and is thus considered the most liberal.

Whoever loses at the en banc level can appeal to the 9-member United States Supreme Court level, where it takes 4 votes to agree to hear a case, but 5 votes to decide it. A final ruling by that court would probably not happen before June 27, 2013.

New Mexico DOMA Dead

New Mexico is like the Goldilocks of marriage equality. It's statewide public policy is neither "too hot" nor "too cold" on this issue. It is one of the rare states in the Union which not does not have a law or constitutional amendment banning (or allowing) same-sex couples from entering into marriage.

However, recently a Republican legislator named David Chavez had proposed an amendment to the state constitution which would have restricted marriages in New Mexico to opposite sex couples only. Happily, the New Mexico legislature adjourned last week without taking action on the measure, effectively killing it.

Interestingly, on January 4, 2011 State Attorney General Garry King issued an advisory opinion that same-sex couples who marry in jurisdictions where it is legal should have those marriages recognized in New Mexico.

WA Referendum 74 and 2012 Marriage Equality Outlook

Referendum 74 is the name of the potential ballot measure which voters in Washington State will face on November 6, 2012 to determine whether they want to APPROVE or REJECT the marriage equality bill recently passed by the Washington State legislature and signed by Governor Chris Gregoire on Monday February 13.

According to the Washington Secretary of State, what voters will see is:

Ballot Title
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.] 

This bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, modify existing domestic-partnership laws, allow clergy to refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages and religious organizations to refuse to accommodate marriage celebrations. 

Should this bill be 

___ Approved 

___ Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary
The bill would redefine marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, apply marriage eligibility requirements without regard to gender, and specify that laws using gender-specific terms like “husband” and “wife” include same-sex spouses. Clergy could refuse to solemnize or recognize any marriages. Religious organizations and religiously affiliated educational institutions could refuse to accommodate weddings. The measure would not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement. Domestic partnerships for seniors would be preserved. 

The reference to domestic partnerships is significant (as is the use of the word "redefine" but we'll get to that in a moment). In 2009, Washington State passed a comprehensive domestic partnership statute which included same-sex couples and opposite sex couples where one partner is over 65. That law was also subject to a referendum, known as Referendum 71. Referendum 71 was approved by voters 53% to 47%.
Most people expect Referendum 74 to also be approved as well, but you never know because voters have never voted in favor of a ballot measure which would legalize marriage equality. There have been 31 statewide ballot measures since 1998 on the issue of same-sex marriage and the pro-equality side has one once (in Arizona in 2006 and that was then overturned by another ballot measure in 2008). It is true, however, that usually the issue on the ballot has been whether to ban same-sex marriage outright, not whether should same-sex marriage be illegal or legal. The only votes where that has occurred are in Maine 2009 (Question 1: No 53%, Yes 47%) and California (Proposition 8: No 52.3%, Yes 47.7%). Maine's Question 1 is basically identical to Washington's Referendum 74 while California's Proposition 8 was an initiative constitutional amendment taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry in the future (or have their out of state marriage recognized by California) 173 days after the California Supreme Court ruled that the California constitution included such a right. Proposition 8 has been declared to violate the United States Constitution by a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Interestingly, Maine voters will have an opportunity to affirmatively legalize marriage equality at the ballot box again in November 2012, and it is very likely an identical situation to Washington's Referendum 74 and Maine's Question 1 will occur in Maryland this November.

So, there will most likely be 3 opportunities for voters to have the specific up or down question on ending discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage this November (Maine, Washington and Maryland).

Polling in the first two situations (Proposition 8 in 2008 and Question 1 in 2009) and subsequent polling nationally and in other states have showed that the wording of the specific question presented to voters makes a huge difference in how they respond. This is why the choice of the words "redefine marriage" by Washington State Attorney general Rob McKenna (who is a declared Republican candidate for Governor) is noteworthy (and problematic). Marriage is not being "redefined" when same-sex couples are allowed to receive civil marriage licenses in addition to opposite-sex couples. To believe otherwise is to believe in a heterosexual supremacist talking point. Exactly the same piece of paper from the government will be given to same-sex couples as are given to opposite-sex couples, if the legal ban on providing such marriage licenses is ended. This piece of paper has nothing to do with any church or mosque or synagogue.

Additionally, one's person's ability to marry has absolutely no impact on anyone else's marriage. This is self-evident. There are tens of thousands of couples who are legally married around the country. How has this impacted the other legally married couples in opposite-sex relationships? The people of Massachusetts were the first to experience marriage equality in 2004 and they readily acknowledge this truth (67% said in a poll that marriage equality in 2004 has had little or no impact on their lives). Whether same-sex couples are issued civil marriage licenses by a state has no impact on someone's religious views about what marriage should be. To believe otherwise is to impose one's own religious views on a secular society, forcing one religion's views on people who believe otherwise, and that itself violates religious freedom!

New Jersey Senate Passes Marriage Equality 24-16

What a difference two years makes in the kulturkampf over civil marriage equality. In January 2010 the New Jersey Senate defeated a marriage equality vote by a vote of 14-20, denying lame duck governor Jon Corzine a chance to sign the measure into law and giving Governor-elect Chris Christie his first legislative victory.

Yesterday the New Jersey senate passed a new marriage equality bill by a vote of 24-16, just three votes short of a veto proof majority, which they have until the end of the current legislative session in January 2014 to get. Republican Governor Chris Christie, who is up for re-election in November 2013 has vowed to veto the legislation if it reaches his desk despite overwhelming public support in recent polls. He, bizarrely, has called for a public referendum on the question of equal marriage rights for all, revealing his disdain for and ignorance of the civil rights tradition in this country. New Jersey does not have a large history of referenda; the last time there was a referendum on civil rights the gentle citizens of the Garden State voted in 1910 to continue denying women the right to vote.

On Thursday the New Jersey Assembly is expected to pass the marriage equality and send it to Gov. Christie for his enthusiastic veto. Then the fun will begin to see if the votes to override his veto can be found in both houses.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

WA Legislature Passes Marriage Equality Bill!

Wow! Another day of great news in the ongoing kulturkampf about marriage equality. 15 years after the Washington State legislature enacted a defense of marriage act over the veto of Democratic governor Gary Locke, the same body has passed a marriage equality legislature bill and sent it to Democratic governor Christine Gregoire for her enthusiastic signature.

Last week the State Senate passed the marriage equality bill SB 6239 by a bipartisan vote of 28-21. Earlier today, the State House of Representatives passed the bill by another bipartisan vote of 55 to 43.

The Advocate reports:

A spokeswoman for Gov. Christine Gregoire said Wednesday afternoon that she expects to sign the bill early next week, making Washington the seventh state plus the District of Columbia to legalize same-sex marriage. 

A round of amendments from Republicans looking to stop the bill all failed. One of the failed amendments had tried to require a referendum before same-sex marriage could be approved.  

Sen. Ed Murray, the gay man who has led much of the push for same-sex marriage in the state, said he and others are already gearing up for an expected referendum in November spurred by a petition drive. He told TVW that first a "decline to sign" drive would try to keep a repeal measure off the ballot.

Interestingly, as a result of yesterday's decision in Perry v Brown, the only chance that heterosexual supremacists may have to stop Washington from becoming the 7th state to allow same-sex couples to legally marry is through the referendum process. If they allow the marriage equality law to go into effect on June 7th and use an initiative to repeal it they will be repeating the state of facts which occurred in California in 2008 and that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled are legally impermissible in the 9th circuit (which includes Washington state).A referendum puts the law on hold until the voters decide whether they want to approve it or not. In November 2009, Maine voters rejected a similar marriage equality referendum by rejecting Question 1.

Regardless, Washington state voters have previously affirmed a same-sex relationship law by referendum in November 2009 (Referendum 71 in a non-presidential year) and will almost certainly do so again in 2012 where the President and a U.S. Senator is on the ballot. Bizarrely, it is somewhat likely that both Maine and Washington will have simultaneous ballot fights going on again in November 2012.

Congratulations to Washington!

Virginia: As Homophobic As They Wanna Be

Careful readers of this blog may realize that I currently live in California and Virginia (Los Angeles and Arlington County, respectively). Anyway, so these days I am paying more careful attention to what goes on in the Virginia legislature, especially as it affects "teh gays."

This little news nugget at Joe.My.God struck my eye. A Virginia legislative committee rejected a bil which would have outlawed discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation. Last November Republicans seized control of the Virginia Senate (there are equal number of Democrats and Republicans but the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican and he can break ties) and anti-gay public policy is one consequence:

Reflecting the recent switch from Democratic to Republican control of the Virginia Senate, a bill aimed at prohibiting discrimination in state hiring on the basis of sexual orientation was defeated today.

The Senate General Laws and Technology Committee rejected Sen. Adam Ebbin’s bill,SB263, on an 8-7 party-line vote.

A similar measure was passed by the Senate last year when it had a Democratic majority, only to be defeated in the Republican-led House of Delegates. Republicans won effective control of the Senate in the November election.

Really? In 2012 when lots of other states are talking about enacting marriage equality (which has majority public support among Americans nationally in polls) and most people already think it is illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation and upwards of 70% support laws to ban anti-gay discrimination, the Virginia legislature is continuing the homophobic status quo.

And, that, basically tell you all you need to know about Virginia!

WA: Majority Of Senators Support Marriage Equality

Excellent news! In Washington State, there is now a majority of Senators who have publicly announced their support for pending marriage equality legislation.

According to the Seattle Times ("Legislature has the votes"):

Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, announced Monday that she supports gay-marriage legislation in the Senate, giving proponents the 25 votes needed for passage.

The state House already has enough lawmakers in support of the measure to approve it. Gov. Chris Gregoire backs the bill as well.

[...]

"I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different," Haugen said in a statement.

"I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy," she added. Haugen said her preference would be to send the issue to voters to decide, but there aren't the votes in the Legislature to do that.

It is widely expected that the same heterosexual supremacists who forced a referendum in 2009 on Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership bill (which they lost!) will do so again when Governor Gregoire signs the marriage equality bill into law.

The legislative majority correctly is refusing to include a ballot measure provision in the legislation because marriage equality is a civil right and they are supporting the  principle that the rights of a minority should not be decided by a majority vote.

In other exciting marriage news, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley is expected to introduce a marriage equality bill today.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

WATCH: Sh*t Homophobic People Say

Godless Wednesday: Catholic Charities Got $2.9B in 2010 Federal Funds

The New York Times recently ran an article summarizing a new front in the ongoing kulturkampf (culture wars): the claim by Catholic officials that they are being discriminated against due to their religious beliefs by advances in LGBT equality.

This graf in particular struck my eye:

Catholic Charities is one of the nation’s most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations).

In Illinois, Catholic Charities in five of the six state dioceses had grown dependent on foster care contracts, receiving 60 percent to 92 percent of their revenues from the state, according to affidavits by the charities’ directors. (Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago pulled out of foster care services in 2007 because of problems with its insurance provider.)

The federal government is providing nearly three billion dollars in U.S. taxpayers monies to an organization which refuses to acknowledge basic tenets of science and aggressively seeks to force its world view upon others, discriminating on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in the process.

Ugh. It makes me nauseous to think that there are people who think they can accept funds (hello, some of which must be coming from LGBT people) and wants to use that money actively discriminating against those people, all in the name of "serving children." Is this not the text book definition of hypocrisy?

We had previously covered the conflict in Illinois between Catholic Charities heterosexist policies and the state's new civil union law on Godless Wednesday but had not seen an eye-dropping quote from religious extremist side before like this one (bolded):

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.”

This is not just a text-book definition of hypocrisy but also hubris! It's shocking to me the Catholic Bishops dude mentions the First Amendment (twice!) in his statement to the New York Times. Has he read it recently?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If your free exercise of religion involves discriminating against other citizens' "equal protection of the laws" and can be construed to contribute to an "establishment of religion" since you are attempting to propagate and promote your religious beliefs to children then it is pretty clear that you lose. And to think that you want federal money to do so is simply sickening.

NOM's Finances Reveal Fraudulent "Grassroots" Claim

The National Organization for Marriage has been forced by federal disclosure laws to reveal the fact that they receive a vast majority of their revenue from a small number of individuals, belying their claim that they are a "grassroots" organization devoted to "defending traditional marriage."

LGBT Think Progress analyzed NOM's financial reports for the last few years and the trend is clear:

Year	# of Big Donors (>$5,000)	Amount Raised From Big Donors	% of Total Fundraising
2008	52	$2,161,000	73%
2009	14	$5,500,000	78%
2010	17	—	92%

The latest analysis was done by The Washington Independent and is an amazing piece of journalism:

About 96 percent of NOM’s total revenue [of $10.6 million] 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.

It is very cool that the truth about the waning numbers of heterosexual supremacists is being reported in the media.

Godless Heathens Respond To Rick Perry

Recently, Rick Perry started airing an offensive television ad which attacked gay people and complained about the attacks on religious beliefs by President Obama and liberals. Today, "godless heathens" responded to Perry's homophobic statements and so have other people.

Approval of Congress Hits Single Digits (9%!)

Initiative Filed To Repeal LGBT Parts of SB48

Here we go again! Not happy with failing to obtain enough signatures to force a referendum to overturn the FAIR Education Act at the ballot box next year, the heterosexual supremacists have now filed a ballot measure (an initiative statute) to remove the section of the law which applies to the LGBT community.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Politics blog reports:

Opponents of the state law that mandates the inclusion of the contributions of  lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in social science instruction in public schools have filed two initiatives with the attorney general to eliminate the law and to give parents the ability to opt out of classroom teaching on the topic.

The initiatives come from two groups that are not affiliated with the organization that failed to qualify a referendum on the law, SB48, last month. The leader of that effort said they will also file an initiative with the attorney general on the law in the near future.

[...]

One of the proposals would simply strip out the inclusion of LGBT people in the section of law that mandates teaching about other minority groups. SB48 also included a new mandate for instruction about people with disabilities, and that would stand under the initiative.

The second proposal adds the ability of parents to pull their kids from instruction in “social science and family life” if it conflicts “with the religious training and beliefs of a parent or guardian.”

If one of these initiatives qualifies it means that there will be an anti-gay ballot fight in November 2012 after all.

Who's Oppressing Who?

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God