Maggie declares victory for marriage in Maine

From the Catholic News Agency: Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, comments on Maine´s victorious Question 1, which repealed a legislative act legalizing gay ´marriage´ in the state.

The Mormon's Other Problem

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

BYU Football: Remembering the Black 14 Protest

By Jay Drew

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated:11/06/2009 05:41:09 PM MST

It's not like they ever got used to it.

Protests, taunts and charges of racism greeted Brigham Young University's football, basketball and other athletic teams almost everywhere they went in the late 1960s and early 1970s, owing to doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - which then, as now, owns and operates BYU - that prohibited blacks from holding ecclesiastical positions in the faith.

But nothing could have prepared BYU's football players and coaches for what they would encounter on Oct. 18, 1969 when they arrived at War Memorial Stadium in Laramie, Wyo.

On the eve of the game, 14 Wyoming football players, all African-Americans, were kicked off the team by Cowboys coach Lloyd Eaton for threatening to wear black armbands to draw attention to the fact that the LDS Church did not allow black males to hold its priesthood.

The incident intensified the national spotlight on the LDS Church and BYU in what was already a period of racial strife in America. It also essentially decimated the Wyoming football program - which had played in the Sugar Bowl just two years earlier and was unbeaten going into the BYU game - for years to come.

Most of all, it forever changed the lives of a group of black players who hailed from large East Coast cities, small towns in the racially torn South and pretty much everywhere in between.

"We were young and a bit naive, and there were some things we all wish hadn't happened," said Tony McGee, perhaps the best known of the group that came to be known as the "Black 14" because he went on to an NFL career. "But I am glad it did happen. Perhaps that was our mission."

Saturday, 40 years later, the Cougars will meet the Cowboys at high noon in Laramie under entirely different circumstances than in 1969. BYU is ranked in the top 25, and has the more successful and nationally recognized football program. However, Wyoming is improving under a new coach and seeking a return to glory - something, save a short stretch in late 1980s - that the Cowboys have never really reclaimed since that 1969 season.

A slow burn, then an explosion

Antipathy toward BYU had been building that fall.

The previous year, the Cougars had played a college football game in a near-empty San Jose stadium, except for a hundred or so heavily armed guards. That was just a few hours after a bomb threat was called into their hotel at 3 a.m., and a day after their flight was diverted to a different airport in California's Bay Area for security reasons.

But in Laramie it got personal. Bottles were hurled at the BYU players, church services were picketed and interrupted and the team hotel was surrounded by demonstrators.

"It was just an ugly scene, one I will never forget," said Dick Legas, a defensive back on that BYU team and now a track coach at the school. "I remember one sign that asked if the seagulls were going to save us, and a lot of anti-Mormon stuff like that. It was just a shame."

Added Marc Lyons, who was BYU's quarterback season and is now an analyst on Cougar football radio broadcasts: "It was pretty unnerving for all of us. Several wives and girlfriends made the trip to Laramie, and I still remember coach [Tommy] Hudspeth telling them, 'I wish you hadn't come.'"

A cauldron of unrest

The irony? The Black 14 incident is largely unknown to the current players on both teams, and to many younger BYU and Wyoming fans.

But America is also a different place today than it was then. The late 1960s were a time of societal unrest, ignited by both the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. And some of that unrest played out on the athletics stage -- just the year before, John Carlos and Tommie Smith had raised their black-gloved fists and bowed their heads in protest after their 200 meters race at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City.

The campuses were alive with activists and protests of all stripes, and it was into that cauldron that the Wyoming and BYU football teams fell into in 1969.

"We were right in the middle of the social revolution," said Mel Hamilton, who would become the most vocal of the Wyoming players. "When your time is called, your time is called."

Even without their black teammates, the suddenly all-white Wyoming football team still routed the all-white Cougars 40-7 that day to improve their season record to 5-0.

"The Wyoming guys were playing for a cause, and they were intense and ferocious, and so was the crowd," remembered Mel Olson, an all-conference lineman on that team who is now a professor of exercise science at BYU.

But victories on the gridiron in the future would become few and far between for the only major college football program in the "Equality State." Black athletes shunned the Wyoming for nearly a decade after, according to school athletic department official Kevin McKinney, who was a student at the time of the protest.

Stirred into a frenzy

Members of the Black 14 say they don't remember anything terribly controversial about the looming BYU game as the 1969 college football season unfolded.

Don Meadows of Seattle, McGee of Fayetteville, Ga., and Hamilton, who now lives in Casper, Wyo., recalled BYU as just another Western Athletic Conference rival, and really not much of a football threat.

However, that changed dramatically when they attended a meeting of the newly formed Black Student Alliance the Monday after they had walloped Texas-El Paso, 39-7, and five days before they were scheduled to play the Cougars.

During the gathering, Willie Black, a doctoral candidate in mathematics, "stirred us up, almost into a frenzy," remembered Meadows, who returned to play for Wyoming the following year.

During the meeting, Hamilton said they were told about LDS Church policies regarding race and the priesthood, and the plan was hatched to have the players wear black armbands to draw attention to that perceived racism.

Black told the players about how seven black members of the UTEP track team, including Bob Beamon, who would go on to win a long jump gold medal in world-record fashion at the 1968 Olympics, had refused to compete against BYU earlier that year. He told the players about the incident at San Jose the previous year in which 21 black players refused to play and urged a fan boycott in a game the Spartans won, 25-21, in the empty stadium.

"It was our time to rise up," Hamilton said.

Swift retribution

Wyoming coach Eaton, a strict disciplinarian, said at the time he kicked the players off the team for breaking rules regarding protests. The players say he used racial slurs and made derogatory comments about the players headed toward "Negro relief" when he told them they were no longer members of the team.

The coach was reassigned within the Wyoming athletic department after losing his last four games of 1969 and going 1-10 in 1970. He died in Kuna, Idaho, in 2007.

Although Eaton's actions probably led to more national scrutiny and scorn for the LDS Church and BYU than if he had allowed the protests, former Cougars coach Hudspeth says he will never forget the gesture.

"Lloyd Eaton, out of respect for us, didn't suit up his black football players that day," said Hudspeth, now an athletic department official at Tulsa University. "Lloyd was a great gentleman, a great supporter of the conference."

What Eaton's actions - and the support he received in the aftermath from university and government officials in Wyoming - accomplished for certain was to alienate the Cowboys' black players, students and faculty.

"When it was over, I had more hurt feelings from how the Wyoming people reacted and the way I was treated than the whole thing with BYU," McGee said.

BYU changes

Wyoming and San Jose State weren't the only places where BYU teams were met with protests and outrage during that era.

Most notably, when BYU's basketball team played at Colorado State the following winter (1970), protestors threw raw eggs and a flaming molotov cocktail on the floor, and a piece of angle iron struck a newspaper photographer, drawing blood and knocking him unconscious. Approximately 50 blacks and whites charged onto the floor at halftime to disrupt a performance by BYU's Cougarettes, and police were called in to quell the riot.

But many believe what happened on that snowy day on the high plains of southeastern Wyoming provided an impetus for the church to change its policy.

Hudspeth, predecessor to legendary BYU coach LaVell Edwards, said that during those tumultuous times - he cannot remember the exact date or how - he was "made aware" that LDS Church leadership wanted him to add African-Americans to his team, and fast. The following year, BYU's team included Ronnie Knight, a black defensive back on scholarship from Sand Springs, Okla., by way of Northeastern Oklahoma A&M Junior College.

In 1978, the LDS Church lifted the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and disavowed the practice many viewed as racist and discriminatory.

Changes also have come to some of the members of the Black 14. Hamilton's son, Malik, became a member of the LDS Church and now works as a banquet chef for BYU, with his father's acceptance.

But neither Hamilton, nor any other black members of the Wyoming football team regret the bold decision they made in 1969 - or the price they paid for it in the aftermath.

"That's what this whole thing was all about - the fight for equal rights," Hamilton said earlier this week at a symposium recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Black 14.

"I think we got our point across."

The Black 14 and BYU

Saturday's BYU-Wyoming football game in Laramie, Wyo., marks the 40th anniversary of what would come to be known as the "Black 14" protest. On the eve of a Cowboys-Cougars game in 1969, 14 African-American football players at the University of Wyoming were kicked off the team by coach Lloyd Eaton for threatening to wear black armbands during the game to protest the racial policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- which operates BYU.

Several BYU coaches and players who participated in that game, and three members of the Black 14 who angrily watched from the stands, recently gave The Salt Lake Tribune their recollections of the event that had an effect not only on both institutions and their future football teams, but race relations in the United States as a whole.

Key members of the 1969 BYU Football Team

Marc Lyons -- Olympus High math teacher, KSL-Radio football analyst

Larry EchoHawk -- Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

Dick Legas -- BYU assistant track coach

Mel Olson -- Former BYU assistant football coach, current BYU professor

Ken Serck -- All-conference offensive lineman

Chris Farasopoulos -- The "Galloping Greek" played in the NFL for Jets, Saints and Giants

Gordon Gravelle -- All-conference lineman played in the NFL for the Steelers, Giants and Rams

Dennis Poppinga -- Father of BYU stars Brady and Kelly Poppinga

The Black 14

Jerry Berry, Tony Gibson, John Griffin, Lionel Grimes, Mel Hamilton, Ron Hill, Willie Hysaw, Jim Isaac, Earl Lee, Tony McGee, Don Meadows, Ivie Moore, Joe Williams, Ted Williams

Postscript: 10 of the 14 Wyoming players eventually graduated from college; Isaac, the only player from Wyoming, is deceased; the whereabouts of Ted Williams and Moore are unknown to their former teammates; Ted Williams, Griffin and Meadows returned in 1970 to play for Wyoming; McGee and Joe Williams played in the NFL and Griffin played in the Canadian Football League

Source: Black 14: The Rise, Fall and Rebirth of Wyoming Football

NEWS RELEASE - Will NOM's Maggie Gallagher Fire Miss California?

November 5, 2009

Ms Maggie Gallagher

President

National Organization for Marriage

1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Maggie --

Maggie, are you going to fire Carrie Prejean??? Donald Trump did.

Carrie Prejean 'sex tape' spurred pageant settlement

By Alan Duke, CNN

I was shocked and dismayed to hear yesterday that your lead spokeswoman, the "future of our movement, and the future of America*" according to you, has starred in a sex video as reported by TMZ.

Carrie dropped her $1 million law suit yesterday against the Miss California USA Pageant, as soon as news of her sex video was exposed. She filed her law suit back in August claiming, of all things, "religious discrimination." Sound familiar?

Are you going to keep her as a paid consultant, Maggie? Are you going to keep her photo and that praise that you heap upon her all over your National Organization for Marriage (NOM) web site?

Does she still represent the true "family values" that you and your NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown espouse.

What does your high powered Board of Directors think? What does your largest backer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) think of this scandal?

Carrie has been a big fund-raiser for NOM, a speaker, you've flown her all over the USA, you have even shared the stage with her, and now this news comes out.

I read that San Diego's own Charles LiMandri, who was your General Counsel on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, is also Carrie's lawyer. Bet he was surprised to hear about that sex video, too. He usually has a lot to say, but yesterday only said that, "it's a confidential settlement, and he can't discuss it."

I feel sorry for Carrie. She is just a young woman trying to make something of her life.

It will be interesting to see how you handle this one, Maggie. Will you be a voice of reason and compassion, or will you toss her to the sharks?

I would hope that you will reflect on this moment in history.

Will you embrace someone whose life is so different from your beliefs? Or will you demonize, bully, rip apart and treat Carrie like someone who has less rights than you have.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,

Fred Karger

Founder

Californians Against Hate

* From Maggie Gallagher's September 18, 2009 introduction of Carrie Prejean, at Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council sponsored Voters Value Summit in Washington, DC.

HELP US FIGHT BACK

Visit our website www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

Doug Manchester: Crush Organized Labor to Crush Progressives

By Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign - Nov 3rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm PST

As I write this, we are beginning to hear results from Maine’s version of Prop. 8 and will soon enough hear about right wing attempts to quash freedom in Kalamazoo, Michigan and Washington state. How well we all remember election night here in California last year, that flash of impossible joy and elation at the election of Barack Obama juxtaposed with the horror of the loss of equal rights. How could both be true? How could we elect Barack Obama and simultaneously watch our fellow Californians vote away our rights?

A year later, regardless of the outcome of these elections tonight, the progressive movement is much broader, more determined and smarter. We know what must be done to change the way people think. We know that multiple tactics, ranging from court fights to ballot box battles to marches to push for federal legislation all must happen simultaneously. We also know that those who invest in repression, in damaging families and in singling out LGBT people (or other minorities) for discrimination must be called on their actions and their investments.

I am saddened, but not really surprised then, that Doug Manchester selected today of all days to launch a new website that hides his attacks on progressives and the LGBT community behind the Hyatt global brand.

Lest anyone forget, Mr. Manchester donated $125,000 in the summer of 2008, at the very moment the National Organization for Marriage and Frank Schubert (the fund bundlers and CEO of the anti-equality fights in California and Maine) desperately needed those final dollars to get Prop. 8 on the ballot. That’s right: Had Mr. Manchester not written his check right then, we may well not have had to fight Prop. 8 at all.

The website that Mr. Manchester and his minions launched today does not even address Mr. Manchester’s deep personal commitment to regressive causes. For example, Mr. Manchester “apologizes” for his donation.

“I respect all members of the GLBT community and have several gay and lesbian employees in various departments and professional levels at Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego. While I stand by my belief that as a private citizen I may make personal donations to causes and charitable organizations of my choosing, I have been reminded daily that not all such actions are correct or favorable to the company, its employees or the community.”

Does this sound like a man who would not again write a check to prevent lesbian and gay people from marrying? Not to me. More insulting, Mr. Manchester then offers “bribes” to 501-c-3 organizations, the type that may not legally engage in politics, as a way to absolve himself of his “actions [that are not] correct or favorable to [his] company.” If Mr. Manchester really wanted to apologize, he would start by saying, “I am sorry that I put up the money that got Prop. 8 on the ballot because I have learned that what I did caused harm to individuals all over this state and nation. As such, I will donate at least twice that amount now to a campaign to reverse Prop. 8.”

But there’s more. While Mr. Manchester’s website complains about the boycott organized so effectively by Fred Karger and our friends at UNITE HERE along with many, many others in San Diego and beyond (including the Courage Campaign and Equality California), he cynically attempts to divide the LGBT community from our allies in organized labor.

Mr. Manchester and his advisors seem to think that organized labor appeared out of the night, saw the boycott and latched onto it. That myopia is what separates progressives from reactionaries. The truth is that organized labor contributed in excess of $2.5 million to defeat the very Prop. 8 that Mr. Manchester helped place on the ballot. Every labor union in the state openly and officially opposed Prop. 8. They spent their members’ funds not trying to win a progressive victory, but trying to stave off the defeat of another reactionary initiative. So it’s only logical and appropriate that the LGBT community would work arm in arm with our brothers and sisters in organized labor—many of whom are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—to highlight unacceptable working conditions at Mr. Manchester’s hotel. Let us not doubt Mr. Manchester’s true goals. He seeks to defund organized labor in order to prevent it from participating in the political process. The so-called “paycheck protection” effort for 2010, that progressives and organized labor spent tens of millions of dollars defeating in November 2005, will be back on the ballot if Mr. Manchester has his way. This is an excerpt from a Lincoln Club letter of October 7, 2009, three weeks before Mr. Manchester launched his “I like gay people” website:

"If we are unsuccessful in passing the proposition in November 2010, we will have the organization in place to put it back on the 2012 ballot. The unions will be in a much weaker poosition and we will have a finance committee and coalition.

To kick off this campaign the Lincoln Club of Orange County and Doug Manchester have each committed $100,000 to this effort."

Tomorrow night, there will be another protest outside of the Manchester Hyatt. Based on this insulting website and Mr. Manchester’s determination to undo the very coalition that we’ll need to restore our rights in California, a protest and recommitment to the boycott are the best possible replies. One day, maybe Mr. Manchester will issue a proper apology that will flow from a meeting with the coalition of California’s future.

We have to know our foes as we build our victory.

Letter to Maine Ethics Commission on the National Organization of Marriage from Michael B. Keegan

People for the American Way

October 30, 2009

Mr. Jonathan Wayne
Executive Director
Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices
135 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Mr. Wayne,

I am writing you concerning misleading and inaccurate statements made by Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, at the Commission's October meeting pertaining to the disclosure of the organization's 990 federal tax form. As you are aware, nonprofit organizations such as NOM are required by law to provide a redacted 990 upon request. This requirement is such a basic and widely accepted part of nonprofit management that there is rarely any sort of controversy surrounding the disclosure of 990s. NOM, however, is an exception.

The issue of NOM's 2008 990 came before the Commission due to testimony by Fred Karger, founder of Califorians Against Hate, and Danielle Truszkovsky, a Florida-based political columnist. Both testified that NOM had refused to provide a copy of the 990. Mr. Brown, in response, categorically rejected the claims of Mr. Karger and Ms. Truszkovsky and testified that NOM had faithfully complied with federal disclosure requirements. However, the facts simply do not support Mr. Brown's testimony.

NOM, according to Mr. Brown, filed its 2008 990 with the IRS on August 14, 2009 -- one day before the August 15 deadline for groups, including NOM, that filed for an automatic extension. Per IRS regulations, the 990 "must be made available from the date it is required to be filed" -- in this case, August 15. Yet when Lou Chibbaro, a veteran political reporter for the Washington Blade, interviewed Mr. Brown the following week and requested the 2008 990, Mr. Brown "promised to release to the Blade NOM's 2007 IRS 990 finance reporting form and said the group would also release its 2008 990 form as soon as it completes its processing." On August 28, Mr. Chibbaro visited NOM's DC office and delivered a written request for the 990s. Mr. Brown called him back that day and informed him that his staff was still at work "processing" the form.

However, there is no such thing as a "processing" period beyond the filing deadline during which time an organization can refuse to disclose its 990. Furthermore, Mr. Chibbaro never received the 2008 990, nor was he notified when NOM suddenly posted the 990 on the web in the days leading up to the October Commission meeting.

Ms. Truszkovsky had a similar experience. She visited NOM's DC office on September 1 and met personally with Mr. Brown. When she requested the 2008 990, she was told that it was not available. Ms. Truszkovsky never received the 990 from NOM and was also not notified when the form was posted online. Additionally, a representative of Californians Against Hate submitted a request via certified letter to NOM's offices for the 990s, with the same outcome.

The experiences of these three individuals -- and most likely others -- directly refute Mr. Brown's testimony. Mr. Brown said in response to Mr. Karger that it "is simply not the case" that "we refuse to disclose our financial records." In response to Ms. Truszkovsky, he said "in fact, when journalists have asked, we've gotten [990s] out to them. At the time that some have requested our 2008 990, it wasn't filed. So we cannot provide something that has not yet been filed.

"Then, when asked by Commissioner Walter McKee whether NOM's 990s had been "provided every time it's been asked for," Mr. Brown said the following: "Many of these requests, if not all of them, included our 2008 990, and so once we had filed that, we would get all of the documents to them. Could some have been a little later than the 30 day window? Yes, if we did anything like that it would just have to do with the amount of processing." He continued, "whenever we've been asked, we've attempted to comply, and mail them out, we're not trying to hide them, we know our obligations, and we follow them." Finally, in response to a question from Commissioner André Duchette, Mr. Brown replied that NOM was continuing to "comply if people write us letters before that time in sending them the 990 through the mail.

"But NOM did none of the above in response to multiple requests for the 2008 990. Ms. Truszkovsky and Mr. Chibbaro personally requested the 990 from Mr. Brown, and Mr. Chibbaro and Californians Against Hate requested the 990 in writing. Yet they never received the form, nor did NOM even notify them when the 990 was posted online. This does not appear to be an accident or an isolated instance of carelessness on the part of NOM. Indeed, the evidence clearly points to a concerted effort to conceal the organization's finances for as long as possible and then to conceal the effort from the Commission.

We do not know what NOM hoped to gain by its actions, but this incident raises serious questions about NOM's operations and leadership. We would therefore encourage the Commission to review and investigate the veractiy of Mr. Brown's testimony.

Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan
President
People For the American Way

CC: Commissioner Walter McKee
Commissioner André Duchette
Commissioner Michael Friedman
Commissioner Francis Marsano
Commissioner Edward Youngblood

News Release: Federal Judge in Maine - NOM Must Abide by Election Law

NOM Must Report Contributors


NOM Heads -- Brian Brown (right) Administers a Lie Detector Test to NOM Chairman, the Infamous Maggie Gallagher (left)

AUGUSTA, MAINE - Californians Against Hate applauds the Federal Court and Justice D. Brock Hornby for its decision today upholding the Maine election law, and ruling in favor of truth and transparency.

The Washington, DC based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) challenged the law while it is under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for financial improprieties, reporting violations and money laundering. NOM is the biggest donor by far to Yes on 1, which would ban the recently enacted same-sex marriage law in the Pine Tree state. NOM gave 60% of the $2.6 million raised so far, but wants to keep its contributor's names secret. Question 1 will be voted on next Tuesday, November 3rd.

NOM Shows Its True Colors

"In over 30 years in politics, I have never seen such a blatant disregard for the law as Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown are doing in Maine," said Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate. "They are up to their old tricks. They did the same thing in California when their apparent creator, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) became the target of an investigation by that state's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The FPPC began an unprecedented investigation of the Salt Lake City based Church (Case #08-735), and the National Organization for Marriage nearly one year ago. NOM sued every top election official in California in order to keep the contributors to last year's Proposition 8 secret as well."

Californians Against Hate asked the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate NOM in a formal request sent on August 24, 2009 to investigate the National Organization for Marriage. NOM had failed to disclose the names of any of its contributors as required by state law. Fred Karger and political columnist Danielle Truszkovsky testified in support of an investigation at the commission hearing in Augusta on October 1, 2009. The Commission voted to investigate NOM at that meeting. NOM's reaction: sue Maine!

Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner represented the Ethics Commission before Justice Hornby stated, "The compelling interest for the public is to know whose spending money to influence their vote. Voters may want to know whether they are being lobbied by people from within or outside Maine." Gardiner said the lawsuit is the first challenge of the state's requirement for ballot question committees to register and report contributions.

The state law requires anyone raising or spending more than $5,000 on a ballot question in Maine to disclose anyone who contributed more than $100 for that purpose. All other organizations are complying with the law.

"The statute doesn't restrict in any way what they can raise or what they can spend. It doesn't restrict political speech in any way. It's simply about reporting after the fact how much you spent or raised for the purpose of influencing the vote in Maine," Gardiner says.

Violations can lead to fines, and, in the most extreme cases, a small amount of jail time.

Concluded Karger, "NOM was well aware of Maine's longstanding reporting requirements and election law before it went charging up there to put this referendum on the ballot. From day one they tried to hide the source of their funds, and then sue the state when they got caught. They think that they are above the law, and today we saw that is not true."

HELP US FIGHT BACK

Visit our website www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

News Alert: Harry Reid: A Mormon in the middle

From The Salt Lake Tribune:

Harry Reid: A Mormon in the middle

Politics » Some say his liberal stands clash with his LDS faith.

By Thomas Burr

Washington » Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps a copy of the Book of Mormon in his office just off the chamber floor. There's a second copy handy to give away to someone in need of spiritual guidance.

"I've had more than that," says the Nevada Democrat, pulling the extra edition from his desk drawer. "I have one left."

The Temple-recommend-carrying Reid is very active in his church, say fellow members in the Washington area. But that may come as a shock to some Mormon critics who contend that the Senate leader's political stands put him at odds with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The latest round of religiously charged criticism came after Reid told gay rights groups in a private meeting that the LDS Church's efforts to back the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California was a waste of resources and hurt the faith's missionary efforts.

Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen posted a news story on that subject on his Facebook page, prompting several conservatives to challenge Reid's Mormon credentials.

Conservative activist and Utah blogger Holly Richardson said she found Reid's comments disconcerting and doesn't see how Reid's far left political beliefs can align with the LDS Church.

"I just don't get how his politics translate to somebody who has LDS beliefs," Richardson says. "He's an embarrassment to me as a Mormon."

Reid, who in 2007 became the highest ranking elected Mormon in the church's history, says he's faced this for years. And he's not offended.

"I think some of the most unChristian-like letters, phone calls, contacts I've had were from members of the [LDS] church, saying some of the most mean things that are not in the realm of our church doctrine or certainly Christianity," Reid said last week during an interview in his office.

Reid converted to Mormonism his senior year in college and attends church just outside the District of Columbia when in Washington or in Boulder City when in Nevada.

He recalls a time when his grandchildren were trick-or-treating at a local LDS ward event and came upon a poster featuring a picture of the Devil and Reid, and asking "Can you tell the difference?"

"I remember it," Reid says when asked how he deals with the criticism, "but I try not to let people who do not represent the teachings that I have learned interfere with my basic beliefs."

Religion and politics » Reid isn't the first and likely not the last political leader to face fire for personal religious beliefs.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the Vatican earlier this year, an anti-abortion Catholic group hand delivered a letter calling for her to be ousted from the faith for her pro-abortion rights stand. A few Catholic bishops said during the 2004 presidential campaign that they would refuse Democratic Sen. John Kerry communion for his position on abortion.

Questions were raised during John F. Kennedy's bid for the presidency about whether Rome would call the shots because of his Catholic faith and similar questions arose with Mitt Romney, a Mormon, during his White House bid last year.

"Having Mormons criticize Harry Reid, Catholics criticize Nancy Pelosi -- George W. Bush got criticism from Methodists -- it's not an uncommon experience at all," says John Green, senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

"There are disputes within almost every religious community about what it means to be a strong supporter of the faith. What is it to be a good member?" Green continues. And because much of that dispute deals with controversial subjects, it spills over to politics.

"It is a very tough spot that Sen. Reid is in," Green says. "It ought to be tough enough to represent Nevada [and be majority leader] without the religion angle and the religion angle just makes that much tougher."

Washington lobbyist William Nixon, who is also the church's Arlington Stake president, says Reid is in politics' most precarious position.

"Serving as a majority leader in either party is always difficult for politicians," says Nixon, a Republican. "You need to be the spear carrier for your party even on issues that are in the extremities and that often is at odds with what's good politics at home or even how you may worship personally."

The LDS Church declined comment for this story but pointed to its statement on relationships with government.

It says that elected officials who are LDS make their own decisions "and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position."

And the church has made efforts in the past to dispel the notion that it sides with conservative politics. In 1998, church General Authority Marlin Jensen stressed that good Mormons can also be good Democrats. The late James E. Faust, a Democrat and then a member of the First Presidency, the church's top governing body, said it was in the church's best interest to have a two-party system.

Still, Mormon faithful remain overwhelmingly conservative. A survey released in July by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showed that 65 percent of Mormons aligned themselves with the Republican Party or leaned that way, while 22 percent sided with the Democratic Party.

There are 14 members of the LDS Church in Congress. Ten are Republicans and four are Democrats.

But even some of the well-known Republican elected Mormons defend Reid as a faithful church member.

"He has the right to voice his opinions but I would under no circumstances challenge Harry's credentials as a member of the church," says Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

Bennett's Utah Senate colleague, Orrin Hatch, says it's not fair for fellow Mormons to disparage Reid as anything but a devout Mormon. Hatch says he didn't agree with Reid's statement on the gay marriage ballot question but said he's entitled to speak it.

"I can personally tell you that Harry is a good member of the LDS faith and he was expressing a personal opinion that his side feels very deeply about," Hatch says.

Reid says church leaders have never complained about his political statements.

Reid's calling » Shortly after being elected in 1986, church leaders summoned Reid to their Salt Lake City headquarters.

"It was a pretty short meeting," Reid says. "They said, here's your assignment: Be the best member of the church you can be. That was it."

Even on the most recent issue of gay marriage, Reid says he doesn't disagree with the church's position on traditional marriage. The senator says he voted in Nevada for the state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But he says he's expressed his concern for years to leaders about the church stepping into the debate and that the millions the church invested in the Prop 8 campaign was bad strategy.

Reid said he's not suggesting the church change its position, just that it not speak out so strongly. "It's just bad strategy to create so much ill-will in California."

The Democrat, though, says he understands the backlash he gets over such statements. He notes that most of the church's lay ecclesiastic leaders are conservative and he's fine with that.

"I don't think my faith is a hindrance to what I do and I'm sorry if people feel that I in some way embarrass them," Reid says, "but I have to frankly say that even on this issue there are a lot of people that say 'we agree with you.'"

On Sunday, Reid, with his security escort in tow, likely made his home teaching rounds after his ward's three-hour service. Anyone who questions his Mormon credentials should see that, says Jim Vlach, his home-teaching companion.

"He's got a tremendous burden with health care [reform] right now, but despite that, he finds time for home teaching," says Vlach.

8: The Mormon Proposition Trailer

8: The Mormon Proposition, a film by Reed Cowan. View at YouTube.

Learn more about the film at www.mormonproposition.com Read Fred Karger's article on 8: The Mormon Proposition at the Huffington Post:

8: The Mormon Proposition Will Knock Your Socks Off

By Fred Karger, Founder, Californians Against Hate

Producer Reed Cowan's amazing new documentary is ready for its close-up.

This could well be the movie of the year. Take a look at the web site, read all about the movie and see who is behind it. You will be even more impressed.

I received a call from Reed earlier this year. He was coming out to San Francisco to film all the activities around the oral arguments being made before the California Supreme Court in San Francisco in the case to overturn Proposition 8.

Having played a very active role in uncovering the massive involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) in last year's Prop 8 campaign, Reed asked me to be in his documentary.

I went up to San Francisco on Wednesday, March 4th to be a part of history, and see this filmmaker begin his journey. I met Reed and his partner Greg in front of the Castro Theater at 6:00 pm. That is the spot where the march to City Hall was about to begin on a chilly San Francisco night.

There were thousands and thousands of demonstrators gathering, ready to begin their solemn candlelight vigil to City Hall. We were recreating the famous nighttime march of 30 years ago, right after Harvey Milk was assassinated.

Reed grew up Mormon in Utah, and knows firsthand the inner workings of the Church. He knew that there was an incredible story to tell, and he spent the better part of a year putting every aspect of this documentary together.

All his hard work, and that of so many others who participated in this strong indictment of the Mormon Church and its leaders, will undoubtedly change history.

I have watched this filmmaker every step of the way over the last eight months. I went to Miami for a second interview in April, and this summer, Reed dispatched a film crew to my home for some final questions. He is very thorough.

8: The Mormon Proposition will explain once and for all just how the Mormon Church operates, and how they have led the fight against marriage equality all across the United States since Utah became the first state to ban same-sex marriage in 1995. 29 states have followed Utah's lead, and the Mormon Church has made sure of that.

The film also goes into great depth about how the Mormon Church has destroyed so many lives and families in its desire to impose its will on others.

Please tell the world about this incredible documentary. It is a film for all to see.

Thank you Reed Cowan and everyone else who gave up so much and worked so hard to make Reed's dream a reality.

HELP US FIGHT BACK.

Visit our website www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

News Alert: Bangor Daily News - The Plot Thickens

Anti-Gay Marriage Group Sues State

by Kevin Miller

AUGUSTA, Maine — A Washington, D.C.-based organization under investigation for its financial role in the campaign to repeal Maine’s gay marriage law has fired back with a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a state election law.

The National Organization for Marriage is the largest contributor to the Question 1 ballot initiative, which seeks to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law. As of the end of September, the organization had funneled more than $500,000 to Stand for Marriage Maine, which supports the repeal.

NOM'S Brian Brown Meets the Press Right After the Maine Ethics Commission Voted to Investigate His Organization

Earlier this month, the Maine Ethics Commission directed staff to determine whether NOM was skirting campaign finance laws in order to avoid disclosing the identities of contributors.

Now, the organization has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor alleging that Maine’s financial reporting requirements are unconstitutional.

The lawsuit seeks a court injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing a law that NOM officials claim is being used to harass and intimidate opponents of gay marriage.

“The reporting requirements become onerous and burdensome, especially when you are working in several states, and are an infringement of free speech,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director.

Ethics Commission officials declined to comment on the specific case but defended the law, which requires organizations soliciting more than $5,000 for a ballot question campaign to file financial disclosure reports with the state.

“The ‘ballot question committee’ system is very important to the public’s understanding of who is influencing these elections in Maine,” said Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Ethics Commission.

The National Organization for Marriage came to prominence last year when it helped overturn a gay marriage law at the ballot box in California. Critics questioned the group’s fundraising techniques.

One of those critics, Fred Karger with the organization Californians Against Hate, filed a complaint with the Maine Ethics Commission earlier this year. Karger alleges that NOM was essentially “money laundering” by soliciting donations from opponents of same-sex marriage for the Maine campaign, all the while promising those donors their identities would remain confidential.

Under the state’s rules governing ballot question committees, which are different from political action committees, anyone who donates more than $100 would have to be identified in campaign finance reports.

The Ethics Commission went against the staff recommendation and voted 3-2 to order an investigation.

Brown and NOM’s attorneys contend the organization did not violate Maine’s rules because they were soliciting donations for the general fight to protect “traditional marriage,” not for the Maine campaign in particular.

Brown argued in an interview Thursday that the reporting requirements — which include registering as a ballot question committee, appointing a treasurer and keeping detailed records for four years — are an undue burden. He also described Maine’s law as legally unclear and “patently unconstitutional” because it prohibited or discouraged free speech in the form of advocacy on one side of an issue.

He also accused the Ethics Commission members and Karger of waging a politically motivated “witch hunt,” despite the fact that the vote to order an investigation was bipartisan.

“What we are basically doing is filing a lawsuit to make clear our First Amendment rights to free speech,” Brown said. He also said that some donors to NOM during the California campaign later were harassed and threatened.

Wayne said the law is set up to ensure transparency in the election system.

“In the past couple of decades, a lot of important issues have come before voters as statewide ballot initiatives, including environmental issues, gambling, tax and spending limitations and hunting practices,” Wayne said.

“It’s common for national groups to want to get involved in these elections … and it is important for Maine voters to know who is attempting to influence these state laws,” Wayne said.

HELP US FIGHT BACK.

Visit our website www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com

News Alert: Uncovering secrets in Maine

Uncovering secrets in Maine

Anti-gay group rolls out scare tactics as referendum nears

By Danielle Truszkovsky

ON OCT. 1, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices met to determine if a complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would be investigated. In his complaint, Karger claimed that NOM violated campaign reporting requirements and that the group was actively participating in money laundering. Despite the evidence he submitted, which included NOM emails pertaining to fundraising specifically for Maine while alluding to donor anonymity, the commission's staff recommended that no investigation be conducted due to lack of supporting evidence.

NOM had failed to disclose even its required IRS 990 filings to the public so it is not surprising that the evidence Karger possessed was limited. In my last Blade column published Sept. 18 entitled, "Follow the money: Why the federal gov't must investigate NOM's financial practices," I detailed how the group has habitually hidden and revised its records. Uncovering NOM's secrets has been the focus of my work for many months and as the title of my last column implies, I do believe an investigation into the group is warranted.

So I flew to Maine specifically to attend this hearing but due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed the first portion of the proceedings. I arrived just in time to hear the testimony of NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown, and a member of his legal team, Barry Bostrom.

Both Bostrom and Brown lavished praise on the staff and the Commission for their professionalism. They insinuated that the entire proceeding was a waste of everyone's time and it was obvious that Brown had thought he had already won. At that point, most of us in the audience believed NOM had won as well -- it is rare that a Commission overrules a staff recommendation.

Then Brown made an egregious error, stating: "Mr. Karger refers to the fact that we refused to disclose our financial records ... this is simply not the case. We have given our 990s to journalists. They are now publicly available -- they're available on our web site and we did that because we got so many calls and people showing up at the office asking for them that it became quite difficult to work."

Apparently, Brown had no idea I had entered the room. If he had, perhaps he would have reconsidered that statement because I am one of only two journalists who showed up at NOM's office requesting 990s -- I know this because Brown told me so in person when I interviewed him on Sept. 1. (The other was the Blade's Lou Chibbaro Jr.)

IRS regulations require charities to release the documents within 24 hours of an in-person request. Brown did not release the documents to me -- ever. And his reference to the documents "now [being] publicly available" was laughable because popular blogger ChinoBlanco revealed that NOM had secretly released the 990s on the web within days of the Maine hearing, presumably to feign compliance in front of the Commission.

Brown went on to attack Karger's efforts and made false claims against the gay civil rights movement in general. Although it was never my intention to speak at this hearing, by the time Brown was finished, I simply couldn't remain silent and allow his false statements to go uncontested.

ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION does not allow public questioning of witnesses, they did grant me a few moments to speak. Here's what I said:

"My name is Danielle Truszkovsky ... I'm a political columnist ... one of the journalists who have visited the NOM offices to request the 990s. It's been an ongoing process attempting to obtain the records. I know that the group Californians Against Hate sent an initial request in March and (NOM) had 30 days to release the records, which they did not do and as far as I know, they have still not sent the records to Californians Against Hate.

"I also personally visited their 'national headquarters' in Princeton three times to make an in-person request and no one was ever available at that office -- it's basically a barren, empty space. I did speak with Brian [Brown] at his Washington, D.C., office and they did not have the returns available at that point."

I went on to explain that NOM has also amended its 2007 return numerous times even though it is extremely rare for charitable organizations to do so. I quoted an e-mail ...

from NOM to its supporters in which the group "takes credit" for the signature gathering and fundraising efforts in Maine. This is a direct violation of the campaign laws in Maine that require groups that fund these efforts to register as PACs (Political Action Committees) or BQCs (Ballot Questioning Committees). My testimony ended with, "Now, I ask, how is it possible that this group [NOM] is the largest contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine at $160,000 but they are the only one who is not registered as a PAC or BQC?"

BROWN AND BOSTROM were then given the opportunity to speak again and when the pair finished, the Commission had some very interesting questions about NOM's activities and attempts to conceal its records from the public. Brown admitted that NOM released its 990s on the web only within the past week. It was also revealed that after NOM donated its initial $160,000, the group has since poured hundreds of thousands more into Maine. As they scrambled to defend their activity in Maine, their story seemed to simply fall apart.

Upon completion of the discussion, the Commission voted 3-2 to conduct an investigation into the National Organization for Marriage.

Prior to the hearing, Brian Brown submitted a sworn affidavit, which states, "NOM does not accept donations designated for the Maine referendum" and "NOM has not made expenditures exceeding $5,000 for the purpose of initiating or promoting the people's veto referendum in Maine, other than by contribution to Stand for Marriage Maine PAC." If it is determined that NOM did violate any of the points listed in the affidavit, Brown could face perjury charges.

It will be interesting to see what developments occur next. It is safe to assume that NOM will do everything in its financial power to prevent its records from being examined. In California, NOM lodged a lawsuit against the secretary of state, the attorney general and the five commissioners of the California Fair Political Practices Commission for allowing an investigation into the group. NOM has also initiated litigation in California that attempts to remove all disclosure of contributors to political initiatives and campaigns. Rather than comply with state and federal regulations, it seems NOM and its backers prefer to use their massive war chest to conceal records and intimidate the officials who seek to protect the citizens they represent. Will NOM resort to the same desperate scare-tactics in Maine?

On Oct. 1, the Maine Commission on Ethics & Governmental Practices made a courageous decision to stand up for fairness. This, however, is just one small victory. On Nov. 3, the citizens of Maine will decide if their gay and straight neighbors deserve the same civil rights. For more information on protecting equality in Maine, visit the No on 1 campaign www.mainefreedomtomarry.com.

HELP US FIGHT BACK.

Visit our website www.CaliforniansAgainstHate.com