Released on Religious Freedom Day (the same day as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day), the letter claims that including same-sex couples in the definition of marriage usurps religious liberty. Essentially, the letter serves as an appeal against legalizing same-sex marriage in more states, citing a few examples of religious organizations that lost public subsidies when they defended their stances against homosexuality. Yet, each example provided occurred in states where same-sex marriage is currently illegal.

“One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of ‘marriage’—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole,” the religious leaders wrote. “For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.”

Among those who signed the letter are the Rev. Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals, several leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention, the presiding bishop of the Mormon church, several Catholic bishops, and the national commander of the Salvation Army.

The letter writers assert that religious leaders will be victim to civil or criminal charges if they do not officiate same-sex marriages:

While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts. Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.

[...]

By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.

Ocean Grove, New Jersey

The religious leaders cite an example of a New Jersey church they say lost its tax-exempt status for not allowing a lesbian couple to rent its pavilion to have a civil union ceremony.

“[T]he state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex ‘wedding’ there,” states the letter.

What the letter doesn’t state is that the pavilion, owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, was receiving tax breaks for almost a century.

According to a New York Times clipping from 1908, the OGCMA land, on which the pavilion sits, was deemed tax-free.

“It was shown to the board by the association’s legal representative, Samuel A. Patterson, that the valuable strip of land, with its boardwalk, had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway, and not therefore subject to taxation,” the Times reported.

When the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights heard the complaint filed by the rejected couple in 2007, it found four reasons why the property was considered a public site, not a religious one, as the OGCMA argued.

Pavilion use was not limited to members of the church, and in fact couples of any faith — even non-Christian ones — could rent the pavilion. The church only used the property sporadically over the summer months and therefore could not be viewed as a house or worship. When not in use, the pavilion was available to anyone who walked by to sit inside or use as shelter from the weather.

The OGCMA even admitted that the pavilion was public. When the association applied for additional tax breaks in 1989 through the state’s Green Acres program, the OGCMA itself said the property was “open to all persons on an equal basis” and “was not restricted to religious uses.”

The case eventually appeared before an administrative law judge who ruled on Jan. 12 of this year that the space was public.

Judge Solomon A. Metzger noted (PDF) that the OGCMA had advertised the pavilion on its website without any indication of its religious nature or any restrictions.

But it was the Green Acres tax exemption that the judge said was important. “Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public,” Metzger wrote in his decision.

The church wasn’t forced to marry anyone, but it could not discriminate on the one small part of its property that benefited from taxpayer subsidy. The church owns the land under most of Ocean Grove.

San Francisco Salvation Army

In the letter, the religious leaders also cite a case in San Francisco.

“San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex ‘domestic partnerships’ in its employee benefits policies,” the letter states.

That complaint stems from a 1998 scuffle between the Salvation Army and the religious right. When San Francisco and a number of other large cities instituted policies that required entities doing business with the city to offer their employees domestic partnership benefits, the Salvation Army found a compromise: It would do so for its employees but not its officers.

“There exists a clear difference in how we deal with homosexuality as an employer and as a church in ministering to our followers,” the group said at the time. “We understand the need for our health care benefits to respond to the wide variety of personal interdependent relationships that we see among employee households today.”

Unhappy with this compromise, Focus on the Family and the American Family Association launched a pressure campaign that caused the Salvation Army to rescind those benefits two weeks later.

Due to the rescinding of that policy, the Salvation Army decided not to contract with the city of San Francisco going forward.

Portland, Maine, and Catholic Charities

The letter also cites an example from Maine.

“Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex ‘domestic partners’ as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds,” the religious leaders wrote.

Portland adopted a policy in 2001 that contractors with the city needed to offer domestic partner benefits.

In 2001, Catholic Charities with the help of the Center for Marriage Law filed a lawsuit in district court. The court said that since Catholic Charities’ benefits plan was covered under federal law, it did not have to comply with Portland’s domestic partner law. But the court also said that other fringe benefits, such as bereavement leave and the Employee Assistance Program, were not covered by federal law and were subject to Portland’s ordinance.

Nancy D. Polikoff writing for the Washington Post noted that it was Catholic Charities that decided to reject the contract with the city of Portland for $85,000 and that, for all intents and purposes, Catholic Charities won that lawsuit.

“It’s wrong that private employers in states recognizing same-sex couples are allowed to discriminate in their employee benefits programs,” wrote Polikoff. “But that’s a problem with the federal law, and it has nothing to do with religion.”

Polikoff was discussing the successful 2009 push to grant marriage rights for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia and the threat Catholics Charities made to end its contracts with the city if it passed. It passed, and Catholic Charities announced it would not longer conduct public adoptions and foster care.

D.C. At-Large City Council member David Catania said at the time, “If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Ever since New York legalized marriage for gay and lesbian couples last summer, NOM has pushed attack ad campaigns against Republicans who are not outspoken against same-sex marriage. And in the current Republican race for the 2012 presidential nomination, NOM’s target is Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul has thus far maintained a strong showing in the latest primary races and in various polls, even at the religious right’s Values Voter Summit straw poll last fall.

Though Paul came in third in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses and second in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary (even winning an entire ward), as the race lurches forward, there are no clear signs that the anti-war candidate with mostly libertarian values is going to take the nomination.

A Rasmussen Reports national poll released last week shows that the majority of likely Republican primary voters polled (44 percent) believe Mitt Romney is the strongest challenger to President Barack Obama, compared with fellow contenders Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. In the poll, Paul was identified as the weakest challenger to Barack Obama.

Still, NOM has been spending cash to ensure Paul’s defeat.

On Monday NOM announced a $50,000 independent expenditure effort in New Hampshire to campaign against Paul, focusing on his refusal to sign NOM’s “Marriage Pledge.” NOM had launched its anti-Ron Paul Wrong on Marriage! website and released a negative television ad before the Iowa caucuses. The ad, below, suggests that, as president, Paul “would destroy traditional marriage in America.”

NOM President Brian Brown credited Paul’s placing third in Iowa, which NOM considers a defeat, with the negative ads. In a blogpost titled “Ron Paul Meets His Waterloo on Marriage,” Brown writes:

Ron Paul, to his credit, has always been a stalwart pro-life vote, and at NOM we know from our past experience in other elections that faith-based voters who see a strong pro-life candidate often just assume he or she is good on marriage too.

In Paul’s case that’s just not true, and we had to let Iowa voters know the truth.

Ron Paul’s a good man, but he’s just wrong on marriage.

NOM released a statement on the results of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday night, with no mention of Paul or his second-place finish. Instead, the organization congratulates Romney for his second primary win. The former Massachusetts governor has promised NOM he will support a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Kevin Nix, HRC’s campaign media director, who also heads NOM Exposed, told The American Independent he thinks NOM is using Ron Paul to make same-sex marriage a top issue in the GOP nomination race.

“The presidential election is predominately about jobs, the economy and the deficit — it’s not about social issues,” Nix told The American Independent in an email. “Yet NOM is trying to inject ‘gay marriage’ into the campaign by running negative ads against Ron Paul. Brian Brown & Co. must stay visible to stay viable. And staying relevant for them this cycle means spending buckets of money to defeat a bottom-tier candidate who is very unlikely be the Republican nominee — and who, by the way, is no friend to the LGBT community.”

According to Nix, Paul is not a friend of gay and lesbian Americans because he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and against a 2009 hate crimes bill.

The NOM Exposed relaunch is intended to sharpen HRC’s strategy against NOM, in essence to weaken its influence in local, congressional, and presidential elections. Though progressive advocacy groups across the nation paint NOM as a fringe group — largely because the organization is believed to be funded by a handful of secret wealthy donors and has a tendency to misrepresent certain aspects of its operations – NOM has had influence on the campaigns of nearly all the frontrunners competing for the GOP nomination:

• NOM co-sponsored a presidential forum in Des Moines, Iowa, just before Thanksgiving, which is where Paul directly told Brown he does not support a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage and in fact believes that the church — not the government — should decide if gay and lesbian couples can marry.
• Robert George, NOM’s chair emeritus, co-hosted last September’s Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina, which was attended by most of the GOP presidential contenders.
• All the major candidates — except for Paul — have signed the NOM pledge to support a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage and to defend DOMA in court.
• And in December, NOM President Brian Brown was spotted at a $1000-a-plate fundraising dinner for Newt Gingirch (he was also caught on tape shoving a Mother Jones reporter after Occupy Wall Street protesters infiltrated the event).

This week HRC released a statement, authored by Nix, explaining the future shape and scope of NOM Exposed:

The mission of NOM Exposed is unchanged: to make legislators at the national and state levels and the media aware of what this group is really all about, who funds it, and how it’s moved even more outside of what mainstream and, increasingly, right-of-center, Americans think about LGBT people. NOM, you will recall, is not only against marriage equality, it is opposed to civil unions. [...]

To the Rogue’s Gallery we’ve added NOM’s new chairman and Tea Partier John Eastman (who by the way gave money to support now defunct candidacy of Rep. Michele Bachmann.) Also included are the group’s corporate project director, Jonathan Baker and blogger Thomas Peters. I would also highlight Neil Corkery gave $2,000 to Rick Santorum in the third quarter of last year.

Nix emphasized that information on NOM Exposed is and will continue to be based on documented research.

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, the LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Marry, which will also be active in the presidential election, does not think NOM will succeed in making same-sex marriage the central issue of this year’s presidential race.

“NOM’s obsession with gay-bashing is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans, who support the freedom to marry, and even with those who don’t but recognize that the country has many urgent priorities and going after gay families is not one of them,” Wolfson said in an email. “The handful of secretive funders who NOM exists to funnel funds for will beat their anti-gay drum and push their political agenda, but even more and more Republicans recognize what a majority of Democrats and independents believe — ending discrimination in marriage helps families and hurts no one.”

Photo: National for Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown speaks at NOM’s 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour, July 27, 2010 (Flickr/Lost Albatross).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This revelation is not extraordinary for NOM, whose existence from the very beginning has been dependent upon large contributions from a small pool of big-money, mostly anonymous donors. But what’s different about this past funding cycle is how much narrower the margin is between $100 contributions and $1 million contributions. And based on NOM’s annual financial reporting to the IRS over the past four years, it appears as though that gap has narrowed over time.

In fiscal year 2009, NOM’s contributions above $5,000 made up about 78 percent of all the contributions received, according to its 2009 Form 990 (PDF). One year later, contributions above $5,000 made up roughly 92 percent of NOM’s contributions, which in turn represented the majority of NOM’s total revenue for that year. The very nature of NOM’s funding structure has made critics chide its self-description as a “grassroots organization.”

Since the very beginning, NOM has fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing the names of donors specifically and its financial records generally. The group is embroiled in various legal battles in different states (recently in Minnesota) to avoid disclosure of its political campaign records.

A closer look into the organization’s federally mandated financial disclosures (embedded below) reveal other discrepancies. Reporters for the American Independent News Network (AINN), the Colorado independent’s parent organization, contacted NOM for comments and clarifications – as we have on many occasions in the past – but the organization declined to respond.

Vague reporting

On July 22, former NOM board chair Maggie Gallagher sent an email in response to a question for a story about NOM’s fundraising. “Nom raised and spent $13 million last year,” Gallagher wrote, referring to 2010. She said NOM’s projected revenues for 2011 is close to $20 million. “Our fundraising target evolve [sic] as our needs evolve, which is partly a result of our goals, and partly what we need to respond to pro-SSM [same-sex marriage] goals.”

But according to what NOM reported to the IRS for 2010, the organization claims it raised about $9.6 million and spent about $10.7 million.

When we questioned Gallagher, via email, about the discrepancy between her quote and what is listed in NOM’s 990, she declined to respond.

NOM reported spending large chunks of its budget on advertising and promotion ($3 million); employees’ wages, benefits, and taxes ($1.2 million); and on grants and assistance to other organizations ($600,000).

But the largest portion – $4 million, or 38 percent of NOM’s expenditures in fiscal year 2010 – was classified on its federal tax form as “other.”

NOM’s treasurer, Neil Corkery, described its general expenses on the form this way: “The Organization developed and distributed via radio, television, mail, email, telephone, and the world-wide web, a series of advertising and outreach promoting traditional marriage.”

What NOM reported spending on “legal” ($313,746) and “political expenditures” ($206,509) are surprisingly small, given that in 2010 the organization participated in several lawsuits and state-based political campaigns. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) shows that in 2010, NOM was involved in at least six different federal lawsuits. NOM has also set up political action committees in various states throughout the country. Last month TAI reported that NOM was one of the top political spenders in Iowa’s 2010 election cycle, making more than $721,000 in independent expenditures.

What NOM did report was contributing to the political campaigns of D.C. Council candidates Delano Hunter ($450) and Anthony Motley ($950); D.C. mayoral candidate Leo Alexander ($1,950); New Hampshire gubernatorial candidate John Stephen ($1,000); and a political action committee for Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli ($2,179). (Only Cuccinelli was successful.) Additionally, the organization reported spending the majority of its political expenditures — $200,000 — on its California-based political action committee.

NOM reported giving grants – ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 – to 11 organizations dedicated to preventing the legalization for same-sex marriage. Two of the donations were for organizations affiliated with NOM: Stand for Marriage DC, a PAC that shares NOM’s mailing address and was created to reverse the legalization of gay marriage in the nation’s capital, and a $200,000 grant to its California PAC (so either NOM gave two separate $200,000 payments to the PAC, or it recorded it twice).

Other grant beneficiaries: American Principles Project, Proposition 8 Legal Defense, Family Research Council Action, Stand for Marriage Maine, Education for All, Catholic Vote Action, Family Policy West Virginia, Indiana Family Action, and Minnesota Family Action.

About 96 percent of NOM’s total revenue came from donations. Of the remaining $368,513, $139 reportedly came from investment income; the rest was attributed to “other revenue.”

In 2010 the organization had a 17-member staff and no volunteers, and yet only four are listed as being paid: president Brian Brown ($212,500), then-board chair Gallagher ($152,500), treasurer Corkery ($25,000), and Jennifer Morse ($116,667). Morse is listed on the form as simply “employee,” but she is actually the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which is a project of NOM’s 501(c)3, the NOM Education Fund – though Morse’s name does not appear on the Form 990 for this fund. Additionally, the Ruth Institute is a separate entity with its own 501(c)3 status. In the Ruth Institute’s 2009 Form 990, Morse was listed as nonsalaried, but TAI has not seen Ruth’s disclosures for 2010.

Who funds NOM and its activities?

Under IRS rules regarding nonprofit entities with 501(c)3 and (c)4 status, all donations above $5,000 must be disclosed. Of the 22 contributions NOM’s (c)4 was obligated to list, all but five were greater than $5,000.

The top five contributions to the National Organization for Marriage, Inc.:

1. $3,416,000
2. $2,940,000
3. $750,000
4. $600,000
5. $400,000

NOM regularly sends out fundraising emails and mailers – usually addressed “Dear Marriage Supporter” – asking for donations of $5, $10, $100, maybe $1,000. Occasionally, NOM will offer to match donations, thanks to a generous million-dollar donor. The Donate! page on NOM’s website includes the following disclaimer:

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status [this is a typo for CNC status – “currently not collective"], are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

Back in July, Gallagher said NOM has drawn 50,000 donors. But many of NOM’s critics believe the organization is funded by a few wealthy donors.

“The National Organization for Marriage is primarily a shell group that exists to funnel funding from secret anti-gay donors,” said Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a national campaign started in 2003 whose mission is to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples nationwide. “[NOM] undermines and tries to overturn campaign finance and disclosure laws in states all over the country. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.”

In September 2010, The Washington Independent reported that Catholic charity group the Knights of Columbus donated $1.4 million to NOM in 2009, an amount that did not appear of NOM’s Form 990.

Concerns about NOM’s secretive nature led to the launch of Nom Exposed, a project developed by the D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign and the California-based progressive alliance called the Courage Campaign.

Courage Campaign founder and President Rick Jacobs said the Courage Campaign and HRC trailed NOM on its summer 2010 “One Man, One Woman” bus tour across the eastern United States to protest same-sex marriage, and he said that many times the counter-protesters outnumbered NOM’s protesters.

“Most of the time they actually just had one man and one woman show up,” Jacobs said.

Perhaps the man who trusts NOM the least is Fred Karger – least known for his long-shot GOP presidential campaign as the first openly gay candidate, but best known for exposing the Mormon Church’s extensive financial involvement in California’s Proposition 8 campaign that overturned the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008.

After obtaining classified Mormon documents from an anonymous source, Karger has maintained his belief that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel money for political campaigns against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ever since, Karger has been tailing NOM’s every move – ready to file a complaint each time it funds a political campaign and fails to register or disclose its donors.

This year Karger started hounding NOM for its 990s a month before they were due. He told AINN that in late October he sent one of his campaign staffers to NOM’s D.C. headquarters on K Street, who came back empty-handed. He then mailed an accusatory letter to recently named NOM chairman John Eastman, which soured the staffer’s ability to collect the forms on a subsequent visit to NOM’s office on Nov. 16.

(AINN first visited NOM’s D.C. office looking for its 2010 990s in early November and was told by executive assistant Paul Bothwell that the forms were due to the IRS on Nov. 15 and would be published on NOM’s website. On Dec. 2, AINN returned to NOM’s office, and Bothwell promptly printed out the records. The forms indicate that NOM will not be making the records available online.)

Karger, who launched an ethics investigation against NOM in California and in Maine and closely tracks the group’s legal cases, said that, based on NOM’s legal activities alone, he suspects the organization’s budget is higher than what they are reporting.

Though Karger still believes that the Mormon Church is in league with NOM, Jacobs said he thinks it’s unlikely, due to all the attention and scrutiny the Mormon church faced after Proposition 8.

“I would be very surprised if the Mormon Church gives anymore,” Jacobs said. “I think they’re done.”

(Earlier this year AINN was told by a documentary filmmaker covering Maine’s gay-marriage battle in 2009 – which NOM was involved in – that Mormon money had been promised but not delivered to the campaign trying to ban same-sex marriage.)

Wolfson said he believes the “Roman Catholic hierarchy” is NOM’s primary funding source.

Neither the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops nor the LDS church responded to requests for comment.

Over the years, NOM has received extensive funding from evangelical Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, and NOM Exposed has linked NOM to the anti-gay-marriage grant-making groups the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Arlington Group.

NOM’s charitable arm

In 2010, the NOM Education Fund reported raising about $1.3 million and spending $1.4 million. Eight anonymous contributions were reported – ranging from $30,000 to $500,000 – for a total of about $971,000 – 75 percent of the NOM Education Fund’s total reported contributions that year.

The group reported spending its money primarily on grants to anti-same-sex-marriage organizations ($345,733), including Stand for Marriage DC, the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, and the Iowa Family Policy Center; fundraising ($153,693); and “other expenses” ($994,793).

Groups with 501(c)3 status are, under IRS rules, prohibited from explicitly endorsing candidates for public office. Last year, The Washington Independent reported that the Ruth Institute’s President Jennifer Morse was publicly endorsing unsuccessful California Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, in potential violation of IRS rules.

No specific mention is made of the Ruth Institute in the NOM Education Fund’s disclosure to the IRS; though, as noted above, NOM’s 501 (c) 4 reported Morse’s salary as an organizational expense.

The future of NOM

Earlier this year, in supporter emails, on its blog, and in advertisements, NOM appeared to be energized by a last-minute derailment of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. However, the passage of marriage equality in New York, the overturning of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, NOM President Brian Brown being laughed at for his arguments against gay marriage on a Fox show, and the revelation that NOM doctored and misrepresented images to inflate opposition to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire have resulted in more urgent messages from the NOM camp.

A fundraising email from Brown from early November begins:

Dear Marriage Supporter, I’m beginning to worry.

We have won victory after victory for marriage. California. Maine. Maryland. Rhode Island. Gay marriage is inevitable? Apparently, voters across America missed that memo. But NOM is fighting on so many fronts right now our resources are being spread thin. [Emphasis NOM's.]

Then Brown accuses the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” of being supported by “massive contributions from the usual Hollywood celebrities, huge foundations and wealthy billionaires. What do we have? Millions of Americans just like you, friend.” [Emphasis NOM's.]

It’s essentially the same argument that the “same-sex marriage lobbyists” use against NOM. HRC, the country’s largest LGBT-rights lobby group, in fiscal year 2009 (PDF) reported $21.4 million in contributions and grants to its political arm. The organization reported 256 contributions above $5,000 – most of them below $20,000.

“There certainly are people opposed to the freedom to marry [for gay and lesbian couples], but they are not the people that support NOM.” Wolfson said. “NOM is supported by a small group of secret donors; we’ve seen no evidence o the contrary. And they are a threat. Not so much NOM, but the anti-gay founders behind NOM. Money still is power.”

Karger told TAI he wants the federal government to investigate NOM’s finances and political activities. Though the political activist himself could be subject to scrutiny, depending on who occupies the White House in 2012. This summer, GOP presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum signed NOM’s “Marriage Pledge,” which calls for the creation of a presidential commission to “investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters.”

“I’ve called for an investigation of NOM from day one,” Karger said. “And I’ll continue – until I’m gone – to call for an investigation. We need the federal government to look into their activities.”

NOM 990 2010 501c4

NOM 990 2010 501c3

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Delegates setting the resolutions for the Knights of Columbus (K of C) again voted to defend traditional marriage and the “sacredness of human life” at the group’s 129th Supreme Convention held in Denver this week. With both controversial issues seen as the most important topics to many of the delegates, some secular and Catholic groups are concerned their agenda is a step in the wrong direction for civil rights.

“As faithful Catholics and Knights of Columbus, we know that among the most important tasks ahead of us is the need to shape our culture according to Gospel values and to bring the Christian message of hope to all,” said Carl A. Anderson, supreme knight and chairman of the board of Knights of Columbus, in his annual report. “I don’t have to tell you that in many ways, society has lost track of the things that are most important: the sacredness of human life, and the right of every child, not only to be born, but to be raised by a mother and a father.”

At this year’s international summit, dubbed “So That the World May Know New Hope,” 2,000 Knights and their families were charged with helping to renew Christian morals in society. The largest Catholic organization outside of the church, the fraternity is known for its philanthropic deeds but has recently sparked controversy for giving millions of dollars to groups supporting the Defense of Marriage Act and embryonic protections. This year, the group affirmed that it plans to continue these efforts.

“One [resolution] defending human life for the unborn against such attacks as abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, taking embryos and using them for resource killing, that is probably of greatest importance,” conference attendee Bruce Desautels told the Colorado Independent. “Under that I would put protection of the defense of marriage. That it is between the union of one man and one woman first for the procreation of life and secondly for the well being of the spouses.”

Desautels, a voting delegate and Deputy Grand Knight from the Stratton/Benkelman Council of Nebraska, added that “with the protection of unborn life, we are not just saying that we agree. There is more to it than that. Our organization is very active and we will pursue successes in those.”

Both the resolutions adhere to the church’s religious tenets. In defending traditional marriage, the organization resolved: “That we join with the Bishops of Canada, United States and throughout the world in their efforts to achieve legal and constitutional protection at the national, provincial and local levels for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” It was a hard-line theme that further resonated in the group’s concern for embryonic protections.

“[T]he Knights of Columbus has a deep and historic commitment to oppose any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other offenses against life and that we continue to speak out to our elected representatives about the need to enact legislation to oppose these practices and to protect human life in all its stages,” the resolution reads.

Like Desautels, other members of the Knights stood behind the measures when asked what the most important resolution topic was.

“There was one on there for right to life, and it is hitting home with everybody. Obviously, it is a number-one priority in my life as far as people go,” said Ed McCann, immediate past state deputy from New Hampshire.

However, numerous Catholic groups that support gay and lesbian marriage say that while the reaffirmation of the K of C’s longtime support for traditional marriage is disappointing, it was not unexpected.

“It is not surprising that this comes out of the convention. The Knights of Columbus have really been at the forefront of the attacks on marriage equality for a number of years now. They have provided millions of dollars to the U.S. Catholic Bishops for the anti-marriage equality work across the country,” said Marianne Duddy, executive director for Dignity USA who was representing a coalition of groups seeking the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. “The kinds of efforts that they have funded rely on a fear, and they portray gay and lesbian people as less than other people or other couples in some way, and that is so hurtful.”

Colorado  groups like Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and One Colorado said the efforts of the religious group were out of step with mainstream American views.

“It’s clear that the majority of Americans now support marriage for gay and lesbian couples,” said Brad Clark, executive director for One Colorado. “This resolution by the Knights of Columbus is out of touch with everyday people who know loving, committed gay and lesbian couples and realize that giving them the freedom to marry strengthens families and communities.”

Similarly, Monica McCafferty, marketing and communications director for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, whose parent organization has been protested by local K of C chapters numerous times for their abortion services, said a pro-choice stance is important in protecting the freedoms of the woman to choose what is best for her body.

“Pro-choice to us is that we support a woman’s decision to be a parent, to adopt or to seek an abortion. Being pro-choice means bringing all choices,” McCafferty said. “While the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ have grayed, at the end of the day people say that even if that isn’t a choice that I can make for myself, I want to ensure that someone else has the ability to make that choice.”

Asked how the Knights would pursue the fight for the resolutions, Desautels said beyond lobbying efforts each Knight was resolved to do what they can do through the courts, through the power of numbers and persuasion. What about financial support?

“I guess that is up to every individual,” Desautels said.

The Iowa Independent reported last year that the Knights gave more than $1.4 million to the National Organization for Marriage, a group that is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative process across the country, in 2009.

In 2010, the K of C charity report indicates that it provided more than $3 million to promote “family life” and a similar amount to promote its stance against abortion. Examples of its spending include $27,500 for a march for life in Canada, $100,000 for Life Athletes in Bend, Ind., $50,000 to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy, Washington, D.C., and $700,000 on an Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage.

In Colorado, individual chapters of the K of C have given to numerous programs over the past 20 years, according to the Secretary of State’s office, that would either discourage or end abortion rights in the state. While the sums have rarely been large, they show a dedication to the resolve of the Knights to uphold their positions. Last year, the Knights of Columbus St. Peter Church Council #11514  in Monument, Co., gave $250 to the Personhood Initiative, a push the Catholic Church decided not to endorse.

Asked what he thought about the concerns put forward by pro-choice advocates and DOMA detractors over the Knights’ agenda, McCann said simply that it was not his intention to change others’ beliefs, but it is important to look at the group’s other philanthropic efforts.

“I honestly honor anybody’s belief whatever their belief is. I am not going to try and turn anybody’s vote one way or the other, ” McCann said. “But I think one of the other most important things was the resolution on helping deal with the disaster in Haiti and a prosthesis program we have for children. I believe charity is the most important part of the Knights of Columbus, and secondly, unity as we grow together to become much stronger.”

Few question the resolve of the order to give or conduct charitable works across the country and world. In addition to some 70,000,000 volunteer hours, the K of C says it provided nearly $4.5 million in 2010 to community causes, including $1 million to help victims of the Haitian earthquake, $270,424 to the Special Olympics and $140,000 to the United Way.

The Knights of Columbus spent just over $1 million this year on its Food for Families program, which distributes funds across its chapters to provide food for local people in need.

Still, despite the organization’s generosity, many LGBT people with hopes of eventual marriage wish that same charity extended to them.

“I have been watching the convention on TV, and I felt my heart breaking for all of those Knights who have gay and lesbian people in their families and who are seeing this organization that does so much good be so wrong on this issue,” Dignity USA’s Duddy said.  She characterized the Knights as setting themselves up “to do a lot of damage to a lot of people and families across this country.”

She said her organization has not given up hope on changing the K of C’s resolve.

“We have actually spoken to a lot of Knights who don’t believe in what the leadership is doing and who are very clear with us that the money they raise goes to local charity events,” Duddy said. “But they really struggle with how to make an impact on what the leadership decides.”

Given the greetings from the Vatican to this year’s convention, it seems unlikely the leadership will be changing their views anytime soon. Here’s what Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of State for the Vatican, wrote in greeting to the assembled group:

“Today, before the increasingly evident signs of a growing forgetfulness of God, a rejection of most basic principles of morality and a breakdown in the very foundations of social life, no committed follower of Christ can fail to heed this urgent summons to work for the rebuilding of our communities in accordance with the enduring values grounded in the natural law, confirmed by the Gospel and enshrined in the Christian vision of life’s true meaning, beauty and purpose.”

Stephen Colbert satirically skewered Talisman Energy’s “Talisman Terry” coloring book character Monday night, following the sad tale to its conclusion with the loveable “frack-osaurus” ultimately lighting himself on fire in a natural-gas-contaminated shower scene.

Colbert took aim at Talisman and its 145 violations for various fracking infractions in a skit on the controversial natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing. The company’s coloring book has been widely lampooned for trying to sell the drilling technique, which critics say can contaminate groundwater, to kids. It’s the gas patch equivalent of Joe Camel.

Talisman Terry

Colbert was hitting on fracking in response to the recent debate surrounding New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to pursue partially lifting the hydrofracking ban in that state. The Comedy Central host also couldn’t resist commenting on Cuomo’s recent signing of New York’s same-sex marriage law.

“He just signed a bill saying gay couple could legally frack each other … why can’t energy companies drill in our backyards?” Colbert quipped.

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting a high-pressure cocktail of water, sand and undisclosed – but in some cases toxic – chemicals deep into the ground to fracture the earth and free up more gas. Here’s Colbert’s colorful and hilarious description of the process: “It’s like giving the earth an Alka-Seltzer, if the Alka-Seltzer shattered your internal organs so that oil companies could harvest your juices.”

With Colbert now ripping on the industry for such transparent attempts to gloss over the dangers of fracking, the debate has clearly entered into the mainstream. It’s been a fringe topic in Colorado and other natural gas hotbeds for years, but the boom in the Marcellus Shale of New York and Pennsylvania has now made the process a hot national topic. View the entire “Colbert Report” segment here:

However, the 4th Congressional District candidate has not only commented on the topic in the past but has sponsored pro-life legislation and supported ballot issues such as the personhood initiative, designed to criminalize choice in reproductive services.

The New York Times reported that, “Mr. Gardner, pressed several times in an interview for his views on abortion and same-sex marriage, simply declined to answer. ‘Those issues haven’t come up very often,’ he said.”

However, those issues have come up constantly in his career as a state lawmaker, as he has consistently worked on legislation that supports a conservative social agenda, including right to life and the sanctity of marriage. In doing so, he has supported the personhood initiative, which would give constitutional rights to zygotes, both this year and in the last election cycle.

His refusal to comment seems odd given his attendance of personhood rallies and his admission he’s worked to garner signatures for the initiative to get on the November ballot.

During a 9 News-sponsored debate (see here ) in February, Gardner said he not only supported the personhood initiative, which would criminalize stem cell research, abortion, some types of birth control, and curtail in vitro fertilization in the state, but added, “I have taken the petitions to my church and have a legislative record that backs up my support for life.”

Gardner in 2007 sponsored a bill that would have prohibited abortion in Colorado, with the exception of protecting the health of the mother.

But beyond the abortion debate, Gardner has stuck to his guns on things like same-sex couples rearing children. He voted against HB 1330 in 2007, a bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to jointly have custody of a child through adoption in what was termed the “second parent adoption” bill. Social conservatives vowed to fight .

Gardner also voted against SB 200 in 2008, a controversial bill that was aimed at ending discriminatory behavior towards gays, lesbians, and trans-gender people across the board.

Gardner also voted against health insurance benefits for reproductive services in Colorado, voted not to repeal the death penalty, and sought to make the killing of a fetus a class-two felony.

“Clearly Cory Gardner will say anything to get elected, even deceiving Coloradans by saying that these issues haven’t come up on the campaign trail when Gardner himself has discussed them on more than one occasion,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Western Regional Press Secretary Andrew Stone said.

But Lamborn’s reading of the legislation is as politically easy to sell as it is factually slippery. Indeed, the contours of the debate shaping up around the Defense of Marriage repeal already seem to mirror debate over health-reform legislation, where interpretations of the most basic effects of the bill are called into question, seemingly immune from the fact-checking work of experts.

According to Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who spoke at a press conference introducing the bill along with co-sponsors Polis and Rep. Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, the bill would not compel states to recognize same-sex marriages. Federal recognition would kick in across the nation, leaving state laws to apply locally.

The bill seeks to repeal the prohibition on Federal recognition of same-sex marriage and prohibitions on states recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Lifting a prohibition experts say is much different than imposing law.

“DOMA should be preserved because it allows states to control their own destiny on the vital issue of how to define marriage,” Lamborn told the Post. “Without DOMA, states like Colorado have to accept marriages from all over the country whether it fits our definition or not.”

Nadler told the Advocate, however, that “states would have to apply the normal principles of comity, which dictate when you recognize the actions of another state. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, the conclusion might be that in some cases they recognize it and in some cases, they don’t.”

The Advocate further quoted Tobias Wolff, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania, who agreed with Nadler’s assessment.

“While repealing the ‘full faith and credit’ portions of the Defense of Marriage Act is very important for a number of reasons, it will not have the dramatic and far-reaching effect of ‘imposing’ same-sex marriage upon other states, as many on both sides of the debate often assume,” Wolff wrote for e-quality.org. “If DOMA were repealed in its entirety tomorrow, states would possess the same power that they have always had to refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages on public-policy grounds.”

Openly gay Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said he sees little chance of the repeal legislation passing in the near future. Still, Polis believes that you have to start somewhere.

Congressman Polis didn’t blink when asked about the wisdom of the strategy.

“Whether this takes a year, six months, three years, what we’re accomplishing here today is getting the ball rolling,” Polis said at the press conference announcing his introduction of the bill.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Nadler said the bill has more than 50 House supporters so far, including Polis and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, but the Washington Blade reports that Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank — the senior openly gay member of Congress — isn’t among them.

Frank said he has “strategic differences” with supporters of the DOMA repeal. “It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,” Frank told the Blade, adding that Congress has enough on its plate with a host of other gay-rights proposals, including overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Frank also said he thought Nadler’s plan to recognize gay marriages in states that outlaw it could “stir up unnecessary opposition” in Congress.

Earlier this summer, Polis blasted the Obama administration for its legal defense against a lawsuit challenging DOMA.

“I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court,” Polis said in a statement, “especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it.”

In 2006, Colorado voters passed Amendment 43, “specifying that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Colorado.” The same year, voters rejected a ballot proposal to establish same-sex civil unions.

A spokeswoman for Polis said he would have more to say about the DOMA repeal next week when the legislation is introduced.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The vote in the Vermont House of Representatives was a nail-biter: Lawmakers tossed Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of legislation allowing gay marriage by a single vote, 100-49, with a two-thirds majority required to quash the veto. Earlier Tuesday, the Vermont Senate overrode the veto 23-5.

Here’s video coverage of the crucial Vermont vote from The Burlington Free Press:

There are now four states — Massachusetts and Connecticut, in addition to Iowa and Vermont — that have legalized same-sex weddings. Last year, the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, but a ballot initiative struck down the ruling.

Colorado voters passed an amendment to the state constitution in 2006 that forbids gay marriage, but two groups are mounting ballot proposals intended to reverse the ban next year. Yesterday, The Colorado Independent pointed to a statistical analysis by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com that suggests Colorado voters could be ready to establish the right gay marriage in 2010.