This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Following is the text version of Matt Baume's report:

The big news this week: the tapes of the Prop 8 trial will remain under seal -- for now. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the District Court recordings of the trial that resulted in Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional should be withheld from the public. That's a big shame, because there were some fascinating moments during that trial.

But don't worry: even with the tapes being kept under lock and key, you can still see what happened in courtroom. Dustin Lance Black's new play, "8," is based on transcripts of that trial, and had a star-studded premier in New York and LA. Now productions of the show are coming to theaters all around the country. Visit 8theplay.com to find a production near you.

And mark your calendars for August 4, 2020. It appears as though there's a 10-year time limit on the stay, so unless the Proponents file for an extension in about a decade, the tapes will finally become public ten years after the case is closed.

Washington State made history this week with the Senate passing a marriage equality bill with 28 votes. That includes four Republicans who voted for the bill.

Now the bill moves to the House, where it's expected to pass, and then on to the Governor, who introduced the bill. So, could anything stop marriage equality at this point? Yes: anti-gay groups could gather signatures for a referendum or an initiative -- or both. Polling shows that 55% of voters would support the marriage equality bill, with 38% opposed, but anti-gay groups have already raised a million dollars and there's no telling how public opinion might change.

As Washington moves ahead, New Jersey is following close behind. This week the Assembly Judiciary Committee voted to advance the marriage equality bill. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill on Friday of this week, with a full Assembly vote next Monday. Governor Chris Christie has promised to veto the bill.

But Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has staked out an opposite position, testifying in favor of a marriage bill. A new survey shows 50% of Marylanders support marriage equality, with 44% opposed.

The National Organization for Marriage has attempted for years to evade campaign disclosure laws that would require them to reveal their funding sources. Unfortunately for them, courts have taken a dim view of those shenanigans. After being shot down in California, Washington, and Rhode Island, anti-gay groups lost yet another round in Maine this week.

NOM doesn't want the public to know where their money comes from, but this week's ruling forces them to open their formerly secret donor files -- just in time for a marriage equality rematch on the Maine ballot this November.

But NOM's suspect accounting doesn't stop in Maine. They're also facing fresh questions in Minnesota, where the group's given a quarter million dollars to the campaign to put a marriage ban in the state constitution. That campaign has received only seven donations -- but those seven donations total $1.2 million. It looks like NOM may be pooling donations from private individuals rather than having those individuals publicly donating to the campaign.

The Human Rights Campaign is keeping a close eye on the money trail and this week urged the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board to investigate.

And in national news, the Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a lesbian servicemember. Despite being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, the Army has refused to give Tracey Cooper-Harris the same health benefits that straight veterans receive. There are at least six other cases against DOMA working their way through the courts right now. That includes McLaughlin v. Panetta, filed in October of 2011.

One of the plaintiffs in the McLaughlin case will meet this Thursday with House Speaker John Boehner's office. Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan has been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer and needs to secure survivor benefits for her wife now. Boehner is one of the chief defenders of the anti-gay law that prevents the Army from recognizing Morgan's marriage.

And finally, marriage equality appears unstoppable in Scotland, with public and political support at an all-time high. It's estimated that the government will complete its study of the issue later this spring, with a draft bill ready for vote within a year.

Those are the headlines, visit 8theplay.com to find a performance of "8" near you. And visit MarriageNewsWatch.com for all these stories and more, and to sign up for breaking news alerts. I'm Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and we'll see you next week.

The panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston rejected the NOM's argument that being forced to disclose donors who backed the effort was a violation of First Amendment speech rights.

The court's decision on Tuesday means the National Organization for Marriage, which advocates that marriage be defined as being between a man and a woman, could have to reveal the names of people who gave more than $100 to its campaign efforts against same-sex marriage in Maine.

The Maine law says that groups that spend more than $5,000 "for the purpose of initiating or influencing" a referendum must disclose the names of their donors.

The decision by a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston clears the way for the state to conduct an inquiry into whether the group was indeed raising money to influence the ballot initiative.

via: Reuters

The group's lawyer, James Bopp Jr., said it was unfair that advocacy organizations should face the same disclosure requirements as political action committees.

"The homosexual lobby has launched a nationwide campaign to harass supporters of traditional marriage," said NOM's lawyer, James Bopp Jr.

Bopp called it "unfair" that advocacy organizations should face the same disclosure requirements as political action committees.

The bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by then-Gov. John Baldacci following approval by state lawmakers, but was overturned in a ballot referendum on November 3, 2009 after anti-gay opposition groups led by the NOM won that vote by 52.8 percent.

Two recent polls indicate that 53 percent of Mainers now favor same-sex marriage, and the measure appears to be headed back to the ballot for a second time.

Last week, marriage equality advocates submitted petitions signed by 105,000 voters, far more than the 57,277 needed to force a referendum in November.

If same-sex marriage passes at the polls, Maine could become the first state to approve gay marriage through a popular vote.

The announcement comes about two years after the Legislature approved same-sex marriage, only to see the measure overturned in a referendum vote.

But since the last vote in 2009, proponents of same-sex marriage -- led by EqualityMaine, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Maine Women’s Lobby and their supporters -- said Mainers have had a change of heart.

"The number of signatures we gathered, the liveliness and thougtfulness of the conversations we've had with Maine voters, and polling that shows a majority of support for marriage equality in Maine has shown us that Mainers are eager to speak on this issue again," said Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine.

A coalition led by Equality Maine launched a petition drive in August for a ballot initiative that would ask Mainers the following question on the November 2012 ballot:

“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”

"The law to be voted on is called an Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom," Smith said, and states that no clergy member would have to perform same-sex marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

The group needed to collect at least 57,277 voters’ signatures by Jan. 30, 2012 to qualify to put the measure on the 2012 ballot. The petitions must now be certified by election officials.

Maine is currently the only state in New England that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

A bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by the-Gov. John Baldacci following approval by state lawmakers, but was overturned in a ballot referendum on November 3, 2009 after anti-gay opposition groups won that vote by 52.8 percent.

Two recent polls indicate that 53 percent of Mainers now favor same-sex marriage.

If same-sex marriage passes at the polls, Maine could become the first state to approve gay marriage through a popular vote.

While only one state -- New York -- enacted full marriage rights for same-sex couples, it was the most populous state to do so. Five other states also moved closer to marriage equality than ever before. Public opinion shifted dramatically towards supporting equality. And the Obama administration announced that it no longer considers a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional.

On the negative side, however, three states failed to pass marriage equality bills that had been introduced in their legislatures, and two states passed bills to put measures on their ballots in 2012 that will seek to ban marriage for same-sex couples under their state constitutions.

Despite the negatives, Evan Wolfson, president of the national Freedom to Marry group, said in an interview that 2011 was “an epic year of real transformation.”

On the federal level, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter to Congress in February, stating that the administration believes Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and will no longer defend it.

Section 3 of DOMA states that the federal government will not, for any federal purposes, recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

Holder’s letter said the administration believes laws disfavoring persons based on sexual orientation should have to pass the most stringent judicial review—heightened scrutiny. And it said the administration would argue so in two cases challenging DOMA in the 2nd Circuit.

LGBT legal advocacy group Lambda Legal, in its December “State of the Law 2011” report, called Holder’s letter “game changing.”

Wolfson said it represented “an immense historical shift.”

Another sign of this shift, he said, was the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers. DADT repeal will help fuel the marriage equality effort, Wolfson said, “because Americans are now going to see the women and men serving our country as openly gay members of couples and openly gay members of families.”

On the state level, the biggest win in 2011 was in New York, where the legislature passed a marriage equality bill in June. When Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) signed the bill, he doubled the percentage of same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry. New York is also the only state to have passed marriage equality through a Republican-led legislative chamber, its state Senate.

Governor Cuomo, by adding his vocal support to the bill, “put his political capital on the line,” Wolfson said. His success prompted politico.com to call him a “national contender” and leader of the Democratic Party’s progressive base. The Washington Post said his triumph made him “a first among equals when it comes to the jockeying for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.”

“The freedom to marry went from being a perceived and presumed ‘third rail’ that politicians ran from to now being a pathway to political gain,” said Wolfson.

Five other states came closer to marriage equality than ever before. Maryland for the first time passed a marriage equality bill out of a legislative chamber, its Senate, although the measure fell short of winning in the House.

And Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island each passed civil union legislation.

But there were disappointments.

In Colorado, a civil union bill was killed on a party-line vote in the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, after passing the Democrat-controlled Senate.

And in Rhode Island, the civil union bill disappointed many because a bill for full marriage equality had been on the legislature’s agenda. It was dropped after it failed to gain enough support, despite large Democratic majorities in both chambers and Governor Lincoln Chafee’s (I) promise to sign it.

LGBT groups were also disappointed with a provision in Rhode Island’s civil union bill providing extensive exemptions on religious grounds for those who don’t wish to recognize those unions. Chafee himself said the civil union law “fails to fully achieve” the goal of providing same-sex couples with equal rights.

Two states saw progress in lawsuits that could lead to marriage equality. In New Jersey, marriage equality advocates have sued the state, claiming that the state’s existing civil union laws do not provide them with full equality—an equality the state Supreme Court said, in October 2006, is guaranteed by the state constitution.

In California, a three-judge panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments December 8 on procedural matters related to the case to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Regardless of the outcome, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the full 9th Circuit court and/or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three states successfully played defense in 2011.

Iowa, New Mexico, and Wyoming held firm against attempts to pass bills for ballot measures that sought to ban marriage for same-sex couples under their state constitutions. If passed, Iowa’s bill would have taken away the right to marry that same-sex couples gained in 2009.

But there were some clear setbacks in 2011 as well.

North Carolina and Minnesota passed bills for ballot measures in 2012 that seek to ban marriage for same-sex couples under the state constitutions. And Indiana and Pennsylvania started the process for such ballot measures, which could see further action in 2012.

In Maine, however, LGBT advocates gained enough signatures to place a measure in favor of marriage equality before voters on the 2012 ballot -- although advocates in California and Oregon decided to postpone such attempts and continue to build support.

These ballot measures could be impacted by what was perhaps the most significant win in 2011: a shift in public opinion towards support for marriage equality.

Support for marriage equality nationwide rose about one percent per year between 1996 and 2009, but jumped to a rate of five percent per year in 2010 and 2011, according to a July analysis of over a decade’s worth of polling data by Joel Benenson, President Barack Obama’s lead pollster, and Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, President George W. Bush’s lead pollster. Freedom to Marry commissioned the study.

The average level of support for marriage equality was 41 percent in 2009, but 51 percent in 2011, based on four leading national polls -- CNN-ORC International, Gallup, Pew, and Washington Post-ABC News.

This change is driven in part by “overwhelming generational momentum,” Wolfson explained, with almost 70 percent of voters under 40 supporting marriage equality.

But the analysis also concluded that since 2006, support has risen 15 percent among seniors, 13 percent among Independents, and 8 percent among Republicans.

Additionally, it found that marriage equality supporters now hold their views as strongly as opponents, which was not the case in the past.

“The politics of the freedom to marry have changed dramatically, as has public support,” said Wolfson.

All told, he said, the events of 2011 mean that “We now have real wind in our sails as we go forward.”

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Click here to subscribe to our new YouTube channel, and visit us over at MarriageNewsWatch.com to find our new Facebook page, our Twitter feed, our RSS feed, and our email newsletter.

A coalition led by Equality Maine launched a petition drive in August for a ballot initiative that would ask Mainers the following question on the November 2012 ballot:

“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”

Betsy Smith of Equality Maine said 396 volunteers collected more than 36,000 signatures on Election Day, bringing the total number to approximately 100,000, reported the Associated Press.

The group needed to collect at least 57,277 voters’ signatures by Jan. 30, 2012 to qualify to put the measure on the 2012 ballot.

Smith said the group will make its decision on a referendum in January.

Maine is currently the only state in New England that doesn't allow either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

A bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by the-Gov. John Baldacci following approval by state lawmakers, but was overturned in a ballot referendum on November 3, 2009 after anti-gay opposition groups won that vote by 52.8 percent.

Two recent polls indicate that 53 percent of Mainers now favor same-sex marriage.

Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in only six states — New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont — and the District of Columbia.

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

We're continuing the countdown to the next milestone in the Prop 8 case. Last week I told you that December 5th at 10am is the deadline for the California Supreme Court's ruling on standing. And this week we learned that we'll be back before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments on December 8 at 2:30pm. We'll be counting down to the 8th throughout this and future episodes.

The fight to repeal DOMA took a tiny step backwards this week -- but then it took seventy steps forward. The Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the anti-gay marriage ban, was slated for a vote on Thursday, but at the last moment that vote was delayed for one week. Meanwhile, a group of 70 major employers filed an amicus brief in support of DOMA's repeal.

Those employers include Microsoft, Starbucks, Blue Cross, Google, Nike, Time Warner, Xerox, and CBS, among many others. And they're joined by an even wider array of organizations. That includes the Anti-Defamation League, the California Council of Churches, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Hindu American Foundation, People for the American Way, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Federation of Teachers, the Screen Actors Guild, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and, of course, the Association of Flight Attendants.

Among those opposing DOMA is Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington, who pointed out that DOMA creates a loophole that defeats ethics laws. Because DOMA prohibits government regulators from recognizing LGBTs' marriages, we don't have to abide by certain rules about nepotism or financial disclosure.

When the vote finally comes next Thursday, the Respect for Marriage Act will easily pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its success in the Senate is far less clear, but Freedom to Marry has been holding a series of salons to rally conservative support for the bill. The hope is that Republicans might find safety in numbers when they see how many of their colleagues support the freedom to marry.

Let's take a look at news from the states. New polling in Maine shows a dramatic shift in favor of marriage equality among independent voters. The data from Public Policy Polling show that support among independents has increased from 46 percent to 53 percent -- that's 7 percentage points -- in just two years. That's good news for Equality Maine, which is preparing for a ballot fight in 2012.

There's more good news in Washington state, where a new survey shows that if the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, 55 percent of voters would support it in a referendum. Unfortunately, lawmakers haven't announced any plan to pursue marriage equality in 2012, since conservative lawmakers could potentially block such a bill.

In New Jersey, couples headed back to court in the latest round of a lawsuit over that state's unequal civil unions. The case passed an initial hurdle on Friday, with a judge allowing the case to proceed on the grounds that civil unions don't provide equal protection.

After one of its most successful legislative sessions in history, Equality California has been stumbling as leadership departs for other projects. This week the organization announced that Joan Garry, the former Executive Director of GLAAD, will help EQCA figure out its next steps.

And in Maryland, civil rights leader Julian Bond released a video in support of that state's efforts to obtain marriage equality through legislative means. Bond is the third prominent African American to participate in the campaign. It's a smart move, since earlier this year, African American churches in Prince George's county played a role in defeating a marriage equality bill, so a diverse coalition is key to success in Maryland.

Those are the headlines for this week, remember to mark your calendars for December 8 at 2:30pm for the next arguments in the Prop 8 case. Join us at AFER.org for more info on the case to overturn Prop 8, and MarriageNewsWatch.com for more info on all these stories and more. We'll see you next week.

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign this weekend and provided a long list of accomplishments over the last three years: ending Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, improving hospital access, improving HIV programs, and so on. He skirted around marriage by pointing out that he stopped defending DOMA, which is better than nothing. But he still won't support full federal marriage equality.

But that isn't stopping other politicians from taking the lead. This week Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island hinted that he may be the next to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the federal marriage ban. If you're a constituent, you can urge him to take action by going to Reed.Senate.Gov.

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine admitted this week that she doesn't even know what DOMA is. So if you live in Maine, you might might want to clue her in at Collins.Senate.Gov.

In North Carolina this week a new survey shows that 56% of residents oppose the anti-gay constitutional amendment slated for the May ballot. That measure wouldn't just ban marriage, but would also keep cities from offering civil unions, prevent employers from extending partnership benefits, and would even stop domestic abuse programs from helping victims who aren't married. Our narrow lead in the polls is quite fragile, so if you or anyone you know is in North Carolina, do your part to help by visiting EqualityNC.org.

Also in North Carolina, this week a leading proponent of the measure was revealed to have made claims about his professional qualifications that you might call "errors." Or you might call "lies."

After Senator Jim Forrester said that gay people die disproportionately early -- which is simply not true -- some folks took a closer look at his background and discovered that he claims membership in several professional medical organizations. The only problem? Some of those medical organizations say that they've never heard of him.

In national news, yet another survey this week shows more people supporting the freedom to marry than opposing. The research from the University of Chicago indicates a plurality of Americans on the side of marriage equality, with just 40% against us.

That continuing shift may be due in part to LGBT couples' increasing openness about our relationships. Just-released Census figures show that over 130,000 same-sex couples say that they're married. That's in addition to half a million unmarried LGBT couples. As more of us come out and talk about our families, more people will come to realize why we need the protection of marriage. And someday, maybe, that'll include the President.

Those are the headlines, visit us over at MarriageNewsWatch.com for more on all these stories and more. You can sign up for daily email summaries of the day's top marriage headlines, so you're always in the loop. Or connect with us over at Facebook.com/MarriageNewsWatch. We'll see you next week.

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher

Don't be fooled by the National Organization for Marriage's public bravado and supposed unstoppable appearance.

Behind the facade,the organization seems to be ever so slowly but surely heading towards a precipice and the thing nudging it along the way is the state of Maine.

NOM was successful in its ballot initiative to overturn Maine's law allowing marriage equality in 2009. But it was a messy win which is turning out to be a pyrrhic victory (a win which ends up biting the victor in the ass) for the organization.

NOM continues to fight against the state's public discloure laws, losing at every turn. The latest loss for NOM came yesterday:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had ruled against the NOM after the anti-gay organization challenged Maine’s political action committee laws, refusing to comply with the regulations requiring disclosure of independent expenditures in candidate elections.

Court documents filed in the case revealed that NOM had provided the majority of the monetary donations to the Maine PAC, Stand For Marriage Maine.

NOM was the primary financial backer during the 2009 campaign for Stand for Marriage Maine — spending $1.9 million dollars in a successful campaign to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law — but failed to report the names of its donors.

NOM President Brian Brown

According to the website
NOM Exposed:

NOM provided more than $1.8 million of the $3 million spent
by opponents of marriage
equality to pass Question 1 – but
it illegally failed to disclose where the money came from. Public disclosure laws create transparency by informing voters who is behind a campaign effort. Maine’s law does this by requiring that any funds raised to support or oppose a ballot question be made public.

 . . . Based on an initial complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate, the Maine  Ethics Commission launched a formal investigation into NOM’s fundraising tactics in late 2009. NOM has refused to cooperate with the state inquiry each step of the way, stonewalling requests to turn over documents to the Ethics Commission. The Commission’s executive director defended the inquiry in February 2010: “NOM donated almost $2 million in support of the referendum. The Commission needs to understand how NOM solicited the funds in order to determine whether campaign finance reporting was required.” In June 2010, the Ethics Commission unanimously denied NOM’s latest request to dismiss the state investigation into the organization’s finances.

NOM has also attempted unsuccessfully to halt the state investigation in court, suing to prevent release of its Maine campaign donors and, in a far-reaching effort, to dismantle Maine’s campaign disclosure laws. A federal district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit have soundly rejected NOM’s attempts to evade the ethics investigation and ordered NOM to produce records to the state.

And if questions about its flouting of Maine's disclosure laws isn't bad enough, there is a soon-to-be released documentary which will shed light on NOM's questionable tactics. Filmmakers Joe Fox and James Nubile convinced both sides of the Maine marriage equality fight to give them "fly on the wall" access during the campaign.

What they filmed is the basis of Question One: the Battle for Same-Sex Marriage in America. As we all know, NOM and its supporters won that fight. But it's Marc Mutty, the head of the campaign against Maine's marriage equality law, who has become the documentary's lightning rod

In the documentary, Mutty voiced extreme displeasure with how his group was attempting to sway people to vote against marriage equality. According to the Iowa Independent:

The film begins with Mutty describing his role in the campaign as that of the “chief cook and bottle washer,” but in the campaign’s final weeks, it’s Frank Schubert, president of California-based Schubert Flint Public Affairs -– the same publicity firm used to defeat same-sex marriage in California in 2008 –- who is calling all the shots, telling reporters he’s the chairman of SMM, making himself marketable for a future anti-same-sex marriage campaign.

At one point in the film, Mutty admits to being upset over two ads pushed by Schubert Flint, which Mutty admits “when I saw it, I cringed,” because of their insistence that civil marriage in Maine will lead to teachers instructing first-graders about gay sex. The longer version of the ad, which Mutty opted not to use, discussed sex toys. In the car, a visibly frustrated Mutty tells Schubert in clipped tones that his staff signed off on the ad. He then slams his cell phone shut and mutters, “So Frank wins the day again.”

The documentary also reveals that Mutty was forced to run the campaign:

On screen, Mutty says he never wanted to run the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, but that his boss, Bishop Richard Malone, wanted the diocese to handle it, and Mutty felt as though he had no choice. In the early days of the campaign, he jokes around with his small staff in their Yarmouth, Maine, headquarters and appears to take his position — one he describes as being “impossible” — in stride. But by the campaign’s end, Mutty often appears agitated, saying things like: “This has been a mother-f***ing son of a bitch.”

And according to a piece written by Peter Montgomery of  Religious Dispatches, the documentary reveals that Mutty may have been simply a figurehead but not really calling the shots in the campaign:

The documentary exposes several myths promoted by the opponents of marriage equality in Maine, including that it was a Maine-based campaign when California-based Schubert-Flint was clearly calling the shots; and that it wasn’t about homosexuality, when religious objections to homosexuality were clearly a driver for many of the activists and leaders. At one campaign rally, for example, a speaker portrays the campaign as a spiritual battle against the devil himself.

One press conference orchestrated by Schubert-Flint used teenagers as props, including one who claimed that at her public school she was made to feel like a second-class citizen for being straight. It seemed like a ludicrous assertion, so I asked filmmaker Joe Fox who told me that those teens were brought out to read their scripted statements, then declared off limits for follow-up questions.

Question 1 is scheduled to have a limited release in the fall and a national release in January. One wonders how NOM will handle damage control then while continuing to fight the disclosure laws not only in Maine but in also several other states.

As far as I'm concerned, these troubles couldn't have happened to a nicer group of folks.

About the Author:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had ruled against the NOM after the anti-gay organization challenged Maine's political action committee laws, refusing to comply with the regulations requiring disclosure of independent expenditures in candidate elections.

Court documents filed in the case revealed that NOM had provided the majority of the monetary donations to the Maine PAC, Stand For Marriage Maine.

NOM was the primary financial backer during the 2009 campaign for Stand for Marriage Maine -- spending $1.9 million dollars in a successful campaign to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law -- but failed to report the names of its donors. The NOM argued that Maine’s requirement to disclose all contributors giving over $100 dollars is "overly burdensome."

NOM still faces legal actions in Maine including its refusal to disclose its donors.

Also, John Boehner's defense of DOMA is found to be full of junk science, a semi-reprieve for LGBTs fearing deportation, and there's lots of work still to do in Maine. This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Transcript and links for this episode are here.

Click here to subscribe to our new YouTube channel, and visit us over at MarriageNewsWatch.com to find our new Facebook page, our Twitter feed, our RSS feed, and our email newsletter.

NOM has filed a raft of lawsuits to shield its donors from public disclosure. But, as this memo outlines, courts and state election boards have consistently disagreed and rejected NOM’s challenges.

Donor disclosure is uniformly required across the country for federal, state and local campaigns and is widely accepted as a vital means to ensure that elections are conducted transparently and fairly.

The latest in NOM’s string of legal defeats came on August 11 when the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the group’s challenges in Maine and Rhode Island.

On its Law Blog, the Wall Street Journal put the cases into perspective.

“The 1st Circuit issued rulings in two cases that raise an important campaign finance issue: the extent to which states can require advocacy groups to report details about their expenditures in support of candidates or political causes.”

Given the recent historical record, states do in fact take disclosure, and legal compliance, in earnest. NOM has unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Maine, Minnesota, New York, California, Rhode Island, and Iowa.

Maine

Throughout 2009, NOM provided $1.8 million to oppose the ballot referendum on marriage equality in Maine, but it illegally failed to disclose where the money came from. Maine law requires that any funds raised to support or oppose a ballot question be made public.

The Main Ethics Commission launched an inquiry and unanimously denied NOM’s request to dismiss the state investigation into the organization’s finances. NOM sued the Commission in February of this year, but a federal judge sided with the Commission and upheld Maine’s campaign finance disclosure law as constitutional.

NOM then took its case to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the State of Maine earlier this month. (NOM remains under investigation by state officials.)

Minnesota

In June 2011, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled that groups advocating for or against a ballot measure on gay marriage are subject to certain disclosure requirements under state law.

NOM had falsely argued that supporters of marriage equality would harass and intimidate their donors, and cause property damage if they were made public. The Board rejected NOM’s bid for nondisclosure. The Board’s decision followed a federal court ruling in September 2010 that upheld the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws against challenge by NOM’s lawyers.

New York

NOM wanted to run ads in support of Carl Paladino for Governor in 2010 but didn’t want to make donors’ names public. Under New York law, running ads in support of any candidate could classify the group as a political committee.

As a political committee, it, like every other organization, would then be subject to several reporting and disclosure requirements. NOM refused and filed suit. U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara rejected NOM’s suit in February.

California

In January 2009, NOM sued the California Secretary of State in federal court to avoid disclosing donors to the Proposition 8 ballot initiative. California law requires campaign committees to report information for any contributors of $100 or more, which is then made publicly available.

Rather than follow the decades-old California Public Records Act, NOM suggested that it was entitled to a blanket exemption. The court rejected NOM’s suit, upholding California’s campaign finance reporting laws and noting that “disclosure… prevents the wolf from masquerading in sheep’s clothing.”

Rhode Island

Last September, NOM sued the state of Rhode Island to keep its donors secret, arguing the state’s restrictions on political advertising and campaign finance disclosure requirements were unconstitutional and overly broad.

A district judge disagreed, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Judges upheld the district judge’s ruling.

Iowa

In 2009, NOM fought to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would reverse the state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision recognizing marriage equality.

NOM asked its supporters to contribute to the Iowa campaign in a nationwide email by saying that “…best of all, NOM has the ability to protect donor identities.” The e-mail and subsequent complaints prompted a letter from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Board stating that state law requires disclosure of political contributions solicited for the Iowa campaign.

Why NOM doggedly fights donor disclosure is unclear. It has argued that complying with campaign finance laws is burdensome and unconstitutional.

It has also argued that gay rights advocates and their supporters will harass, intimidate, even damage property of the donors should their identities be known. Serious scrutiny of these claims has revealed only isolated incidents, questionable reports and, more often than not, legitimate acts of public criticism typical of any hard-fought campaign.

In California, for example, a federal court debunked NOM’s harassment allegations, pointing out that “numerous of the acts about which [they] complain are mechanisms relied upon, both historically and lawfully, to voice dissent… This court cannot condemn those who have legally exercised their own constitutional rights in order to display their dissatisfaction with [NOM’s] cause.”

Ultimately, vilifying the LGBT community is part of the group’s fake victimization crusade.

Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has come down on the side of public disclosure and against NOM’s secrecy crusade.

In Doe v. Reed, Scalia wrote: “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously…and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”

A spokesperson for Equality Maine said that same-sex marriage supporters in Maine gathered more than 5,000 signatures during the first official day of petition-gathering.

The organization focused its first day efforts on summer festivals in the cities of Portland, Kennebunk, Biddeford, York, Bangor, Ellsworth and Brunswick on Saturday.

"We're finding that Mainers are changing their minds on this issue -- and that's going to continue through November of 2012," said Betsy Smith, executive director for Equality Maine, one day after Secretary of State Charlie Summers approved the language last Wednesday for the citizen-initiative petitions.

Maine's marriage equality law, previously passed by the state's legislature and signed by the former governor, was overturned in a ballot referendum in 2010 after anti-gay opposition groups won that vote by 52.8 percent.

Equality Maine will need to collect at least 57,277 voters' signatures by Jan. 30, 2012 in order to qualify to put the measure on the 2012 ballot.

The new bill would first go to the Legislature, which would have an option to pass it.

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Transcript and links for this episode are here.

Click here to subscribe to our new YouTube channel, and visit us over at MarriageNewsWatch.com to find our new Facebook page, our Twitter feed, our RSS feed, and our email newsletter.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has again ruled against the National Organization for Marriage’s attempts to challenge the “constitutionality of a Rhode Island election law requiring the reporting of so-called ‘independent expenditures.’”

NOM has been actively challenging financial disclosure laws across the country to protect the names of its few but generous donors. The Court borrowed largely from its own decision against NOM’s challenge to Maine’s laws. Read the full decision.

The Maine Public Broadcasting Network goes into more detail about NOM's loss:

NOM, which was the major funder behind the effort to overturn Maine's same sex marriage law two years ago, had had challenged the constitutionality of Maine's election law, claiming that its reporting requirements for political action committties are vague and over-broad.

District Court Judge Brock Hornby ruled against NOM on most of its challenge, and now the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has also weighed in, siding with the state of Maine.

"That's correct, NOM had made 'vagueness' claims and First Amendement claims, and the 1st Circuit rejected all of them," says Tom Knowlton, an assistant state attorney general who serves as counsel for the Maine Ethics Commission. "The 1st Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of Maine's laws that require the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in candidate elections by PACs and by independent groups."

And as if NOM's court loss isn't bad enough, according to Equality Matters, the organization's "Values Bus" tour is an unmitigated flop:

On Tuesday, NOM -- along with the anti-gay Family Research Council and anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List -- began its 2011 “Values Bus Tour,” which plans to stop at 22 Iowa cities and energize ‘value voters’ to participate in the Ames Straw Poll on August 13 (the day the tour ends).

So far, tour stops have included appearances from GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, with others expected to show up before the week ends.

Not making appearances so far? Actual voters.

So far, looking over the scant news coverage the tour has received, it appears that few of NOM loyal followers bothered coming out to show their support.

And Equality Matters is definitely twisting the screws into NOM's wounds by going into detail as to where NOM stops on its tour and just how many people are not showing up.

I know I shouldn't enjoy Equality Matters's breakdown of NOM's flopping tour but I am.

Sometimes you gotta say what the hell and do things for your own personal enjoyment.