THE SHOT – The gaydar board that St. Matthew’s Church in Auckland, New Zealand used to highlight ongoing Anglican discrimination against LGBT clergy. Someone recently vandalized it, which reminds us of the American church whose rainbow flagpole got vandalized six times. So how will this help us fight NOM in the 2012 Minnesota marriage battle exactly?
NOM is trying to build a narrative of queers harassing “marriage defenders” in order to keep from disclosing its probably crooked financing schemes. Luckily Minnesota ain’t buying it:
The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board rejected the National Organization for Marriage’s bid to keep corporate donors anonymous in the state’s gay marriage fight, which it argued was to protect the donors from “harassment, property damage, a chilling effect.”
We should point out that supporters of marriage equality get harassed for their politics as well and yet aren’t ashamed to publicly disclose their financial contributions on behalf of civil rights.
That’s what Jesus would do, britches.
NOM is getting desperate. They know that all that dough they are pushing out to maintain and prolong institutionalized bigotry is illegal. They also know that the people who matter know it is illegal. They do anything at this point to save their own asses. And kudos to this awesome church!
NOM so far has not complied with ANY orders to disclose it’s financing. If it did, the Mormon and Catholic churches would be shown to be in major violation of their tax exempt status. Then again, nothing will happen to them, because you can break any rule, attack any person, be as racist as you want etc… as long as you claim it is your religious belief.
The Federal Court, hours ago just declared an end to DADT. Why is there nothing on this blog about that??? It happened in the 9th Circut court and Queerty offices are located in the same area. This happened hours ago…come on guys!
NewQueerty seems to have far less staff (that don’t work weekends).
Bye Bye DADT: Score one for the judicial branch as today DADT was ruled unconstitutional. Thanks @Cam & the Twitterverse for the news……
Yes, Cam I blogged it myself, but I don’t think Queerty staff is home today.
As for NOM, they need to comply and cough up the financial records already, or go to jail.
I’m having a wonderful daydream. All the Courts with standing orders against NOM simultaneously rule them in contempt of court and the records are released in multiple jurisdictions.
How many years does it take to prosecute obvious violations of election law? Organizations that sponsor ballot propositions are required to report their donors. NOM has flatly refused to do so, in every state where they have operated, for a number of years.
If there is no penalty associated with intentionally violating the law, then there isn’t really a law because no one is actually required to obey it. If there is a penalty, it shouldn’t take a dozen years to enforce.
robert in NYC
NOM is a 501(c) 4 organization and subject to disclosing its donor list to the public upon request. If it doesn’t, it can be prosecuted, fines are severe too.
Queerty is right though, supporters and donors to pro marriage equality organizations are often harassed and aren’t afraid to have their names disclosed. NOM’s counter-argument is flawed and meaningless. I can’t wait to see the list, especially the amounts donated by the archdioceses across the country. The archdiocese of New York contributed $500,000 to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law. I suspect collectively it will be a lot higher once the list is published.
I know of a certain college that wants to paint itself as gay friendly and ahead of the times that had a certain staff member give money to NOM for the Maine fight out of their discretionary fund. It would be interesting if stuff like that was revealed across the country. If NOM released its donor list a lot of organizations would be running scared not just the Catholic and Mormon churches.
robert in NYC
Correction to my last post. Under IRS code 501(c) 4, organizations are not bound to disclose their donor list but ARE if they accept corporate and union donations. I wouldn’t mind betting that is why it’s reluctant to disclose.
Steve – #8 – there are many laws on the books without penalty components which makes me just hate politicians. They always trumpet bills as if they were accomplishing something but with a fine/penalty etc. they are toothless laws. I found this out inadvertently when a co-worker tried to use the FMLA (family medical leave act). Her supervisor was giving her grief about it – but only the US Attorney General could litigate the complaint should she have decided to file one; (we were told) and then there was no penalty. Quite a surprise, I’ll tell you.
meant to say WITHOUT a penalty….
Comments are closed.