Leave a Comment Sagesse
Debunking the claim that traditional marriage supporters are harassed for their views
November 16, 2011
By Jacob Combs
The Minnesota Independent has an illuminating piece this week about the claim made by Minnesota for Marriage, a traditional marriage group, that disclosing its donors could subject them to violence at the hands of marriage equality supporters. Minnesota for Marriage is bringing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the ballot in 2012, but as the Independent points out, a series of court cases around the U.S. has shown just how dubious these claims of threats and violence really are.
We’ve seen this before in both Washington and California. In a trial decided earlier this fall, the NOM-affiliated group Protect Marriage Washington claimed in court that the signatures it had collected to put repeal of the state’s domestic partnership laws on the ballot should not be made public, since doing so would make those individuals the target of “militant homosexual activist groups.” In the court’s conclusion, Judge Benjamin Settle wrote the following:
Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made.
In California, a court challenge brought by NOM led Judge Morrison England to a similar conclusion. He ruled that other than the normal political activities (boycotting, protesting, voicing dissent) which characterize campaigns surrounding any sensitive issue, NOM could prove no substantiated acts of harassment or reprisals.
Now, NOM is at it again in Minnesota. Along with the Minnesota Family Council, NOM asked the Minnesota campaign finance board to loosen its disclosure requirements on campaign spending. The board rejected their application, and when it proposed new rules to close loopholes in ballot initiative reporting requirements, NOM announced that it would simply ignore those rules, which is, of course, illegal.
NOM likes to boast that it has never lost a ballot measure against marriage equality. A record to be less proud of is its success in court challenging campaign transparency rules. In addition to its failures on this front in California, Washington and Minnesota, NOM has also lost similar battles in Iowa, Maine, New York and Rhode Island.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
25 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Warner | November 16, 2011 at 9:08 am
So they cause us harm, but they cannot prove we cause them harm… Wow.
2.
scottsteaux63 | November 16, 2011 at 9:24 am
On some level you really have to stand in awe of NOM's chutzpah. They carry on like raving lunatics about how being gay is a sin and how Christians should be against it, but they are not above LYING to get their way, as we have seen many times, and "a lying tongue" is in the Bible as something that God HATES.
"Wake up and smell the coffee!" — Ann Landers
3.
Alan_Eckert | November 16, 2011 at 9:25 am
∞
4.
Warner | November 16, 2011 at 9:52 am
That seems to be a accurate summery of Religious extreamisem in general. This is why there is a seperation of church and state written in the constitution under Freedom of Religion. if only it was enforced, because we could probably solve more than just the equality issues if we could free our nation from control by right wing religious groups who are anti-freedom, anti-constitution, and above all, anti-jesus. There is not christ in right wing fundementalist christanity.
5.
RWG | November 16, 2011 at 10:19 am
They keep losing cases based on these phony claims of harassment, keep losing cases trying to hide their donors, but no one ever HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE! When are they going to be fined or have the officers jailed for contempt? When will the courts put some teeth into their rulings? It's no wonder NOM continues to thumb its nose at the law. There are never any consequences for their crimes.
6.
Ann S. | November 16, 2011 at 10:20 am
§
7.
Fr. Bill | November 16, 2011 at 10:22 am
What are the penalties for NOM's non-compliance (flaunting the law)? Are they being applied? Can we ask for a writ of mandamus to compel the State election boards to act? In any event we should get the press to feature their lawless behavior along with their intentional lies. Maybe a lot of calls to the election officials in those states might get attention. Any ideas out there?
8.
JinMD | November 16, 2011 at 10:33 am
I totally agree. They keep losing all these lawsuits yet what's the consequence?
9.
_BK_ | November 16, 2011 at 10:41 am
Thankfully, the judiciary cannot be swayed with lies and fallacies. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the sadly gullible public.
10.
Mark | November 16, 2011 at 10:43 am
I think they should first lose their tax exempt status, and if they continue to ignore the law, subpoena their officers to court, and prosecute them with fines, or jail time, or both. Where is Kamala Harris on this issue?
11.
Ronnie | November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am
Subscribing & sharing…….Actress , journalist, & playwright Katori Hall is an American who supports Marriage Equality….. <3…Ronnie:
[youtube ZVBN-Osuzgo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBN-Osuzgo youtube]
12.
Bob | November 16, 2011 at 10:58 am
Right on Warner,,, it needs to be spelled out Christ is not present in these right wing religious actions,,,,,,,,,
as for seperation of church and state,,, Christ centred religions in their teachings and dogmas, honor the secular laws ,,, as a seperate thing,,, God given,,, and not to use releigion to influence,,,,,
13.
Bob | November 16, 2011 at 11:01 am
further,, right wing religions,,, think homophobia is a good thing,,, cause we're evil,,,, but homosexuality as we know it was not known in biblical times,,, best info on that is in a "letter to Louise" by a baptist preacher……
14.
Steve | November 16, 2011 at 11:11 am
Lying for Jesus is ok according to the Christian "moral" code
15.
Reformed | November 16, 2011 at 12:48 pm
As I was taught, lying in not wrong if their is no moral obligation to tell the truth. This is true of course . . As an example, during a home invasion, your are under no obligation to be truthfull to the intruder that demands to know if there is anyone else in the house. Whether to tell the truth or not, is not a moral issue in this case.
I am not sure how that translates to a justification for lying about marriage equality. I don't think determining whether or not to lie based on a moral obligation equates to "Lying for Jesus" and those who "Lie for Jesus" should stop.
16.
AnonyGrl | November 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I agree that lying for Jesus is not, in fact, moral, but those who do it would argue that it is just as much about protecting themselves from harm as lying during a home invasion would be. They would also argue that there is no moral obligation to tell the truth in an instance where it might benefit such immoral behavior as homosexuality.
But I find that some of the contortions certain religionists go through to justify their behavior borders on obscene.
17.
Reformed | November 16, 2011 at 2:38 pm
The courts should stop them immediately. Let Brian Brown and Maggie become jailed maryters for contemp. What is this saying about our legal system?. At this rate, who would ever follow election and campaign law. By the time the consequences show up, the election is usually over.
18.
june | November 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Does anyone know if NOM has ever actually handed over any of the info it's been ordered to? It seems like the judges keep ruling they have to give up the info, but I don't recall one instance of them actually complying…
19.
Deeelaaach | November 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm
This is kinda off topic – but while we're talking about NOM complying with laws, what if anything is going to happen to the NY city clerk who will not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? Is she going to be held accountable for not following the law? She is bound by law to issue licenses to all eligible couples (my words, not meant to be a legal term) as defined by NY state law, yet she will not do so. She was just re-elected.
Will she see any discipline at all, and what kind of discipline could the state apply to an elected individual in this case? Is there a lack of political will to do anything about her ignoring the requirements of her jobs only as she sees fit? If there is no political will to do anything about it, then why do we have laws at all? If they are just words on a page that no one (in power) cares about… I'd like to think we are better than that.
20.
Ann S. | November 16, 2011 at 9:17 pm
She should be disciplined, but she was just re-elected. Not sure where the lawsuit is on that one. I believe there is one that's been filed.
21.
Deeelaaach | November 17, 2011 at 12:09 am
Thanks for the info Anne. If I did know about the lawsuit, I didn't remember it at the time of my post.
22.
Deeelaaach | November 17, 2011 at 4:53 am
Thanks for the info Anne. If I knew it already, I didn't remember that a lawsuit had been filed.
23.
Ann S. | November 17, 2011 at 8:47 am
I believe the ACLU filed it.
24. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 18, 2011 at 8:02 am
[...] I wrote earlier this week, district court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that Protect Marriage Washington [...]
25. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
[...] Wednesday, I ran through a number of LGBT items of interest in a round-up post. Jacob debunked the right-wingers’ argument that those who oppose marriage equality are routinely harassed [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.