Breaking News! NOM Demands Federal Investigation of HRC, IRS -- NOM Marriage News


NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've just released a statement to the press. NOM is demanding a federal investigation of the possibly criminal act of releasing private tax return information, information which was posted by the Human Rights Campaign this week!

Here's the background. You've probably followed some of the media brouhaha over the release by Maine's courts of some in-house documents which the Left is trying to use to paint NOM as racist. More on that story in a minute.

Also this week, HRC posted on its website a copy of NOM's 2008 Form 990 with the names of donors and their addresses. We don't release that information because this is private, legally-protected IRS information, not public information. We don't release this information about our donors, the Heritage Foundation doesn't release this information about their donors, and the Human Rights Campaign doesn't release this information about their donors. The names are given to the IRS but they are not revealed to the public and they are legally protected, making it a federal crime for the IRS to release this info.

So legally-protected, confidential IRS information was just put up on the Human Rights Campaign's website. There is no allegation that any individuals on that list committed any wrongdoing. "Whistleblower" laws do not apply. HRC has never explained or been asked to explain by the press how it got this legally-protected private tax return.

Here's what I can tell you definitively: This private IRS return was NOT released by the Maine courts. So as I just told the press, "Either the HRC got NOM's tax return from someone with the Internal Revenue Service, or they got it from a hacker who stole it. Either way, it appears that a federal crime may have been committed."

The privacy of your tax returns is one of the most important privacy rights the federal government promises: Nobody will misuse your personal and private information for political purposes.

I repeat, we do not yet know how HRC got this information, because HRC has not publicly fessed up. That is why we are demanding a federal investigation. But it is clear the document was stolen.

If a clerk in the IRS accessed and released this information, it's a federal crime and a crime against every decent, loving, law-abiding American, whether they favor or oppose gay marriage.

What does HRC know about this federal crime and when did they know it? We want answers.

As a supporter of traditional marriage, you have a right to know that your opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't justify illegal intrusions upon your privacy. We won't back down on this.

It's an outrage!

Another outrage: President Obama is shocked, shocked, at the idea that the Supreme Court would overturn a duly-enacted law passed by a majority in Congress.

Whatever you think of Obama (and I should say that we treasure the brave Democrats we work with, who both support Obama and oppose gay marriage!), the chutzpah to claim that he opposes federal courts overturning law has to be a little much. As Brian Bolduc writes for National Review Online:

On Monday, President Obama admonished the Supreme Court to uphold his health-care law, lest it overturn the legislation in a fit of "judicial activism." The president told reporters: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Last year, however, the president took the "extraordinary step" of declaring "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" unconstitutional. In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a letter notifying him that the administration would no longer argue on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. It passed both houses of Congress by wide margins (342–67 in the House and 85–14 in theSenate)—much wider margins than Obamacare got (219–212 in the House and 60–39 votes in the Senate). The problem, of course, is that the administration disagrees with DOMA: The law enshrines traditional marriage in federal law and allows states to ignore same-sex marriages approved by other states.

We aren't the only ones wondering about Pres. Obama's disingenuousness in this regard. You might miss this delicious little story if I didn't point it out, but a federal judge just smacked down the Justice Department, which is in court arguing a totally unrelated case, by asking for a 3-page memo on whether the White House believes the Supreme Court has the power to overturn federal law backed by a majority.

Drawing the line between the legitimate exercise of judicial review and judicial activism may be hard, but here's a clue: It starts with the idea that words—whether it's the word "marriage," or the words of the Constitution—have meanings. You can't just make stuff up and put it in the document.

On the good news front, in Great Britain more than 300,000 people have signed a petition protesting the Conservative Party's attempt to redefine marriage. And less than two weeks ago the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex marriage is not a human right.

Closer to home, there's more good news: Frank Schubert, the Prop 8 campaign manager, just announced that he is leaving his existing firm to start a new firm, Mission Public Affairs, which will allow him to devote his considerable political genius to the causes of protecting life, marriage and religious liberty full-time!

From his press release announcing his decision:

Schubert, a conservative Catholic, said he would build a new national consulting practice focused on social issues such as protecting life, strengthening families, preserving traditional marriage and protecting religious liberties, along with pursuing conservative public policies that promote prosperity and liberty. A 30-year veteran of public affairs, Schubert has twice been named the nation’s most valuable political consultant by the American Association of Political Consultants, and received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (Sacramento Chapter).

"My conservative ideology and my faith have been major guiding forces in my decision to work on some important but controversial issues, including life and marriage," Schubert said. "But the firm has become much bigger than me personally. I don't want my work on social issues to continue to overshadow the people who work for me, or the clients we serve. By stepping away from the company, I will be able to continue to work on the issues I care about while allowing the remaining leadership and staff of the firm to pursue the excellent work they are doing for clients, and to continue to grow the business going forward."

One small step for a man—one giant leap for life, marriage and religious liberty!

And finally, in Alaska, voters defied polls to reject "Prop 5" in Anchorage. Prop 5, which would have established gender identity and sexual orientation as protected legal categories, was defeated by voters 58%-42%.

We don't usually cover campaigns like this because NOM as an organization is focused on the marriage issue, not gay issues generally. There's a power in being a focused single-issue organization which undergirds the victories we've helped you win for marriage.

But what caught my eye was the huge gap between the expectations from polls that this law would pass and the actual verdict from voters in the polling both.

Now the ad campaign defeating Prop 5 emphasized that Alaska was already a tolerant place and that the new law posed threats to liberty—both gay bar owners and Christian book store owners might face criminal penalties for understandably wanting to hire people like themselves.

Opponents were outspent 4-1 and in the end the polls meant little. "'It's amazing what happens when the curtain closes behind you in a voting booth,' Jim Minnery, the chairman of Protect Your Rights Campaign—Vote No on Prop. 5, said Wednesday morning in an e-mail," as reported by The New York Times.

Marriage supporters like you and me will remember this phenomenon too, from Maine and California: Polling on gay marriage is often dramatically different from actual results of elections. Voters are sensitive to how questions are phrased. They value tolerance and support the legitimate rights of gay people to be free from fear, harassment, and violence, to vote, and to participate in the democratic process on an equal basis.

But fundamentally, the majority of Americans see a difference between tolerance for gay people as their neighbors and fellow citizens, and the equation of gay marriage with civil rights.

Do not be discouraged!

Remember that, when you read headlines like those in The New York Times, "Divide and Discriminate," calling on everyone—but especially Republicans—to disaffiliate from NOM because of our alleged "racial politics."

(Anyone surprised—really—that the New York Times editorialized against us?)

The conservative Washington Times just posted a column by R. Clarke Cooper that basically retweets The New York Times' message points: "NOM's Racial Politics Leave A Bitter Taste."

Reasonable people can and do disagree about gay marriage, but Americans stand united against the failed politics of discrimination and division. As recently revealed, NOM has sought to divide Americans based on race, and is dividing our attention away from the issues that matter most to our nation today. NOM has rejected the American motto of "e pluribus unum"—out of many, one—and their politics of division should be rejected by all Republicans in return.

My response to this meme? Well, I just sent this letter to the Washington Times, which will be published on Friday:

R. Clarke Cooper urges Republicans and conservatives to refuse to associate with the largest and most effective single-issue organization standing for marriage on the grounds that NOM is engaging in racial division by recruiting Black and Latino spokespeople for marriage. NOM did not create the divide between African-Americans and gay marriage advocates, standing for marriage is not standing for division or discrimination, and it is patronizing for media elites to treat the heroic stand of the Black church as a product of hateful politics. Reaching out to black and latino supporters who share our view is something conservatives do and should do more of and NOM will continue to do so.

The current round of media attacks on NOM for one line in a 3 year old document reflect the basic tactic of the Left: use government to push a new moral norm; when Americans with more traditional values object, attack them mercilessly. Then blame conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) for being "divisive." End game? Shutting down the voices of millions of Americans.

NOM is proudly going to continue to stand up for marriage as the union of husband and wife, and reach across lines of race, creed, color and party to do so.

And here's Maggie versus a hapless MSNBC anchor, who first blamed her on-air for not showing up to an interview, and then had to tweet an apology because it was MSNBC's own scheduling error:


More signs that gay marriage is not a civil right, in the views of the majority of African-Americans:

The Coalition of African American Pastors just released a press release announcing a campaign to get 100,000 signatures for marriage, led by the Church of God in Christ, America's largest black Pentecostal denomination, with members in 60 countries, and the 5th largest Christian denomination in the U.S. According to this press release:

Bishop George D. McKinney, Bishop Felton Smith and Rev. William Owens will lead in ensuring the 100,000 names for the marriage campaign around the nation. They plan to travel to various cities around the country to gather signatures, but the thrust of the campaign will begin in North Carolina where there is a marriage vote slated for May 8, 2012.

Rev. Owens stated that the civil rights he marched and fought for in the late 50s and early 60s is being seized by the radicals who want to take advantage of a long and hard fight for civil rights and use it for their own agenda on same-sex marriage.

In North Carolina, where voters will vote on a marriage amendment on May 8, even the Daily Tarheel report on a debate at Meredith College notes that African-Americans have something to say for themselves when white liberals claim gay marriage is a basic human right:

The front of the room, reserved for students, was mostly white, young and female. They cheered for Eichner's arguments about the amendment denying benefits for domestic partnerships....the rest of the first floor was dominated by members of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ—mostly black and middle-aged—and vocally opposed to same-sex unions.

Patrick Wooden, the pastor at Upper Room, was a panelist at the event who had members of his congregation present in support.

But their views reflect a larger demographic of the state: black, Democratic and opposing same-sex marriage.

... [Panelists] referencing past laws against interracial marriage, [hoped] to frame the issue in a civil rights light.

But Wooden's reply, redirecting the argument back to religion, showed the stronger influence for many black voters in the state.

It is insulting for the elite media to imply that these marriage supporters are NOM puppets, just like it would be arrogant for anyone at NOM to imagine we are responsible for this show of support.

We are grateful to people like Pastor Patrick Wooden for their courage and leadership.

We are grateful to each and every one of you who has dared to stand up for God's first institution, marriage.

But I have to give an extraordinary shout-out, one I hope you'll share with me, to Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz. That New York Times editorial, "Divide and Discriminate," alleging that NOM is racially divisive, apparently touched his heart.

Díaz is a Latino Democrat from the Bronx, who worked with NOM opposing gay marriage in the New York legislature.

He had this to say about this media meme, writing as both a state senator and the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, which represents tens of thousands of Hispanic and black Christians in New York City:

On behalf of all those churches, I am here to say: I have worked closely with the National Organization for Marriage and I have marched with NOM's President Brian Brown to defend our civil right to be heard in the debate over the meaning of marriage.

Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.

You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage—a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.

A voice for the voiceless. Unity not division. Respect for views the mainstream media ignores.

I'm so grateful to each and every one of you who has refused to yield to the contempt the media elites display for the good sense of the American people.

As Winston Churchill said, "Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, 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.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.


  1. Good News
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    On the front lines (1 of 3)
    Hello? Leaders of our Land (and of our Western World) GET A CLUE!

    “Drawing the line between the legitimate exercise of judicial review and judicial activism may be hard, but here's a clue: It starts with the idea that words—whether it's the word "marriage," or the words of the Constitution—have meanings”
    The man-woman union (with or without children) has unique and unprejudiced meaning for children, for adults, and for the entire human race; whether it has a word to name it or not. But only a crazy society with crazy, confused, manipulative, unkind, and or not-up-to-the-job leaders would insist on outlawing (or putting out of circulation) any such word that might clearly signal out, to its citizens (and to its growing kindergarten children), that union.

    “It starts with the idea that words... have meanings” And the definition of the meaning of the word 'marriage' always and exclusively starts out with: 'A union between a man and a woman'... and than builds from there.
    You 'leaders' are creating a new union? Create a new word to name it. And give back to your people a tongue, so not to leave them with just a hollow screeching voice box. What will you cut away from us next? Oh yes, our children. And our hearts.

  2. Good News
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    On the front lines (2 of 3)
    Not so good news.
    Unfortunately, I do not think the European Court's our truly on our side, any more than Obama is (when he says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman). I think the manipulative European Courts where expressing to its nations that, “these two loving women are being unjustly treated. They can't adopt this child only because you will not allow them to get married. Get with the program nations (in this case, France), and change your marital laws...” I'd put Obama's 'kind' words, and this Courts 'kind' ruling, all together in the same wastebasket. And if France elects the Left's (Socialist Party) candidate for President of their country in a couple of weeks, France will change its marital laws before the fall leaves of 20012 drop from the trees. And these girls will adopt away with blessings from State and Church in gay Paris... (American Cathedral in Paris, and American Church in Paris.)

    But you give us plenty of good news from the front. And though I'm sickened, disappointed and outraged, I am not discouraged! And never will be. For I know the Truth of marriage. And they, they don't even believe it exists, truth.
    Prop 5 clips are good in showing and educating gay and gay sympathizers that everybody (except government and corporate commercialism) is going to loss in these word-wars.
    But thank you for being focused on the “marriage issue” NOM. Which I would focus down to the “word marriage issue”! If you come back from the “good news front” one day with nothing other than one word that we can use in our society, and in our Kindergarten classes, that will uniquely name the man woman union – you will have won the biggest and most important battle. In what might be a very long and dirty war. And the word does not even have to be 'marriage'. It can be any combination of a few letters taken from among the 26. As long as what that word denotes is clear and unthreatened! Without that 'word', things will get very very gray and murky and mean...

  3. Good News
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    On the front lines (3 of 3)
    People can be aware that fighting for a word to unambiguously name the man-woman union has, at its most basic and important level, nothing whatsoever to do with gays or homosexuality. It can be thought about and talked about without bringing up in anyway the intimidating and confusing homosexual issue. It is rather simply fighting for the legitimate right to name this truly unique and unprejudiced union.

    And so it is also fighting for the possibility to clearly translate foreign words from different countries, and from different times in history. For example, when Jesus or others in the Bible used the word 'marriage' he certainly did not use that exact word, nor did the word sound like 'marriage'. But whatever word they used, they clearly meant a union between a man and a woman. Our language needs to be able to clearly use, and translate, such an important and evocative word.
    If in the past the word could be also used in other situations, to assimilate the idea of union without affecting the man-woman aspect of the definition; today, in the case of the human sex irrelevant unions, this is absolutely not possible. For it would be doing away with the original and vitally important (unchangeable) meaning of the word marriage, which is the aspect of “man-woman”. The important aspect of the definition of marriage is not “union”, though this is what they are making of it. “Union” is the adjective in the “man-woman union” of marriage. Man-woman, is the thing, the noun, that is being named by the word 'marriage'. What kind of a man-woman? A united kind; for life, with aspirations, and purposes, and unique possibilities etc. etc. Marriage is not first 'union', to which we can then adjectivally describe, by adding to it man-man, woman-woman and all other colors of the rainbow.

    Oh I know in the larger culture-war there is also the battle about the influence of homosexuality in our society, of child adoption, of 'parents', of the manufacturing of babies and of public school education etc. etc. etc. And none of it can be ignored. But the word of marriage is a key peace to the puzzle. And it is an important tool for the healthy education of our children.

    Anyway. For today, there's a long weekend ahead of us – have a nice one. (And when you ask for chocolate, I hope your not handed a celery stick.)

  4. Katherine Harms
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    It is an outrage that the Human Right Campaign is willing to receive and use stolen property, even if they had nothing to do with the theft. It is a crime that this form was stolen from the IRS. The crime must be investigated. The Human Rights Campaign should immediately take down this posting and apologize to the American people for receiving stolen property and for breaching the confidentiality of federal tax records.

  5. Roberti
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    This is the most defensive Brian has ever been. NOM really has painted itself into a corner these days.

  6. Ash
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    I guess great minds think alike! I was thinking the *exact* same thing when I heard Obama talk about judicial activists overturning laws passed by Congress. I couldn't believe that a president who took it upon himself to declare DOMA unconstitutional and not defend it, would complain about the possibility of his healthcare law being overturned. I'm so glad others are noticing the hypocrisy.

    And don't let up on the IRS and HRC until you get answers, Brian. Someone needs to answer for this criminal act.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Receiving and utilizing stolen property for personal enrichment is as much a crime as the theft itself.

    Look it up.

  8. Mikhail
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    The truth is that NOM loves gays and HRC hates them. NOM tells the truth which is that if you are gay you can choose either to remain celibate, have a difficult (possibly unhappy) life but be rewarded in heaven, or you can have a romantic same-sex relationship and a happy life but burn in hell for eternity. Its your choice: finite happiness now and infinite misery later? Or would you prefer finite misery now and infinite happiness later? This is the teaching of the Russian Orthodox and the Roman catholic church. I enjoy the thought of these gays being tortured in hell, makes up for their opression and hatred of Christians in this life.

  9. ResistSSA
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Mikhail -

    Not sure if you're being serious or not, but there's a misperception that people who have adopted homosexuality as a lifestyle cannot be happy with partners of the opposite sex, and that is just ridiculous. As humans we are all able of forming deep, meaningful relationships with people of both sexes. As my mom used to say, everyone has their match.

    Homosexuals all have the right to get married; they choose not to.

  10. Mary
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Mikhail: thanks for this: "I enjoy the thought of these gays being tortured in hell, makes up for their opression and hatred of Christians in this life."

    WIll go a long way in proving NOM's gay animus in court.

  11. Deborah G Breckinridge
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Bravo! Excellent, outstanding noble worthy valuable effort and work on all our behalf to defend marriage!

    And, for uniting so many groups of people that have been so silenced and dismissed by the Left and liberal media!

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Nobama said: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    For the record, the House vote was 219-212. Guess that's the redefinition of "strong majority." Further,

  13. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    SCOTUS overturning laws is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary.

  14. penny c.
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Defensive much?

  15. John
    Posted April 7, 2012 at 2:03 am | Permalink

    So being on the "right" side of history, as the lgbt calls it, means committing federal offenses to get their way? Whatever.

  16. Alana
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    NOM LIES as usual. That information is NOT "private" -- it is REQUIRED by the IRS to be available to the public. Read this:,,id=135008,00.html

    "What tax documents must an exempt organization make available for public inspection and copying?

    An exempt organization must make available for public inspection its exemption application. An exemption application includes the Form 1023 (for organizations recognized as exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3)), Form 1024 (for organizations recognized as exempt under most other paragraphs of section 501(c)), or the letter submitted under the paragraphs for which no form is prescribed, together with supporting documents and any letter or document issued by the IRS concerning the application. A political organization exempt from taxation under section 527(a) must make available for public inspection and copying its notice of status, Form 8871.

    In addition, an exempt organization must make available for public inspection and copying its annual return. Such returns include Form 990 , Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, Form 990-EZ , Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation, Form 990-BL , Information and Initial Excise Tax Return for Black Lung Benefit Trusts and Certain Related Persons, and the Form 1065 , U.S. Partnership Return of Income.

    A section 501(c)(3) organization must make available for public inspection and copying any Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, filed after August 17, 2006. Returns must be available for a three-year period beginning with the due date of the return (including any extension of time for filing). For this purpose, the return includes any schedules, attachments, or supporting documents that relate to the imposition of tax on the unrelated business income of the charity. See Public Inspection and Disclosure of Form 990-T for more information."

    When will NOM stop it's blatant lying about LGBT people and pretty much everything else?