NOM BLOG

HRC President & Obama Co-Chair Implicated in IRS Leak Scandal, NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The scandal over the release of confidential IRS information on the Human Rights Campaign's website grows.

The more we at NOM look into this, the more it smells to high heaven.

As I told the press, "The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents who also happen to be co-chairing President Obama's reelection committee." It's on the front page of the Daily Caller today (Thursday)!

Just think: By next Tuesday, hundreds of millions of Americans will turn over to the federal government personal and private information on their finances and their families. This information is protected by federal law. Willfully releasing or retailing our private tax information is not just an outrage—it's a crime.

Each one of us is entitled to believe these laws will be respected as we file our tax returns by this April 17. To misuse this information for political purposes is an incredible violation of trust and law—and we are not going to take this lying down!

Joe Solmonese is the head of HRC, an organization which has just posted this illegally-obtained information and in which people are delighting in doing so, even knowing it is illegal. Joe Solmonese is also a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection campaign.

HRC is evidently counting on being politically protected—by its relationship with the President of the United States—for totally outrageous and possibly illegal behavior.

HRC has claimed it received this information from an "IRS whistleblower"—a totally inappropriate term, given that none of the individuals whose private information was released have been accused of any wrongdoing. Nor has HRC accused them, except insofar as Joe Solmonese and his organization apparently believe that opposing gay marriage is in itself justification for illegal intrusions of people's privacy.

Here are the latest developments:

NOM has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

The document on the left is as it appeared when published by the Huffington Post. However, that document was modified in a failed attempt to obscure its source. There is a label visibly obscuring a portion of each page, and it was determined that information on the top of each page was also obscured in the version posted on the Huffington Post.

After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service. The top of each page says, "THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY." On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of "100560209." Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with "Official Use" information.

All taxpayers have the right to expect that their confidential tax returns filed with the IRS will not be given to their political enemies. Doing so is a felony. What makes this even more problematic is that the recipient of these confidential tax returns is a group headed by President Obama's national campaign co-chair.

This is something one might expect to occur in the old Soviet Union, not the United States of America.

Here's a copy of the letter we sent to Treasury, demanding that the Treasury Department launch a federal criminal investigation into the IRS and the Human Rights Campaign to bring the criminals to justice.

This is going to be a big fight, and it's a bigger fight even than marriage. It's a fight about whether the rule of law will prevail over politics.

There's so much else I could tell you about this week. This week we endorsed Mitt Romney for President; CNN covered the story.

Our DumpStarbucks.com campaign continues. As I write 30,934 of you have signed a pledge to send a message to CEO Howard Schulz—give us coffee, not gay marriage! This week DumpStarbucks.com goes international, with websites and banner ads in Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish and Indonesian.

And here's Family Leader's Bob Vander Plaats describing how they're dumping Starbucks.

(BTW, if you have a few minutes could you go to DumpStarbucks.com, sign the pledge, and put us over the top to get to 31,000 today?)

In Great Britain the petition opposing gay marriage has now topped 400,000, and Tory leaders are expressing consternation that Prime Minister David Cameron is pushing gay marriage on an unwilling populace and party—amid increasing doubts that he can actually pass gay marriage.

A survey found that 59% of Conservative MPs expressed doubts that the measure could pass. Even more are doubting that the push for it will help the Tories come election time.

Lord Tebbit, a former head of the Conservative party (back when it acted conservative!), said: "I doubt if Mr Cameron's new-found enthusiasm for 'gay marriage' will make it any more likely that he will lead the Conservative Party to a majority in 2015 or add greatly to the sum total of happiness and contentment in our society."

The so-called "conservative" case for the radical redefinition of marriage is looking more thin and tattered every day, including politically and electorally.

GOP elites thinking through this issue should learn from Cameron's experience. Politico just published a story claiming major GOP donors are splitting from Romney over his opposition to gay marriage.

But while it is true that major GOP donors helped push gay marriage in New York, there are no signs yet of a suicidal (for the GOP) Cameron strategy of becoming the party of gay marriage, against the views and values of millions of voters.

All the major GOP candidates for president signed NOM's Marriage Pledge (except Ron Paul) because they know marriage matters, and matters to millions of Americans.

HRC and Freedom to Marry jointly signed a letter to Cardinal Timothy Dolan, describing NOM as a "fringe" group which divides Americans. This is going to be an increasingly prevalent meme from them—no matter how many elections we help you win.

Last week, Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz said about NOM:

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.

 

This week I'm proud to tell you that a truly major religious leader, Bishop George McKinney, published an op-ed. Yes, he defended NOM, but more importantly, he defended the right of the black church to speak for marriage.

It's called "Black Church's Respect for Marriage Deserves More Respect from the Media."

Bishop McKinney is on the governing board of the Church of God in Christ, which is not only the largest predominantly-black Pentecostal denomination in the United States—it is the fifth-largest Christian denomination of any kind, and a worldwide church in 60 countries. Here's Maggie with the Presiding Bishop, Bp. Charles E. Blake:

I'm very proud of the the work NOM has done with great men and women of every faith and color who stand for marriage. But I also want to make it clear, in case I haven't yet in the smoke and roar of battle, that I genuinely regret the language in that memo—not the part that says we will work with leaders of every race, creed, and color, but any language which suggests that we believe we can manipulate or provoke either African-Americans or gay-rights advocates.

It is wrong to think we have the power to do so, and wrong to try. And it's not what NOM does.

We also do not use the marriage issue to elect Republicans. Our goal is to build a rare thing in America: a genuinely interfaith, interracial coalition of Americans across both parties, who are willing to stand for God's vision of marriage—no matter what heat that brings.

Bishop McKinney explains it this way:

This idea of marriage has roots not only in the great, stirring words of Genesis, but in the human heart across time and diverse cultures. Marriage is a virtually universal human social institution because every society has recognized the need to bring together man and woman in order to encourage and protect the next generation. Both our faith and our reason direct us to this understanding of marriage.

About 10 years ago, gay marriage advocates decided to overturn this historic and religious understanding of marriage and insist that unions of two men or two women were the same as a marriage and must be treated as such by the government and society. They created out of whole cloth the idea that gay marriage was a basic civil right and that dismantling the public meaning of marriage was somehow akin to overturning racist bans on interracial marriage. Misusing the sacred value of equality, they began insisting that all opposition to their new morality was "bigotry" or "hatred."

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," wrote "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

But Bishop McKinney, a man of God, also says something else that all of us who oppose gay marriage need to keep in our hearts:

The actual natural rights of homosexual people, rooted in God's laws and the moral order, must be respected and protected. These include the right to vote, the right to earn a living, the right to be free from harassment and/or violence and the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, etc.

Let me echo the words of this great man of the cloth. Even as I fight with every fiber of my being for marriage, I remember that gay people are our fellow citizens, our neighbors, and in many cases our friends and family members. More importantly, each is a child of God, infinitely precious to Him. We must never let ourselves become the caricature that Joe Solmonese apparently carries around in his head about us. (BTW, gay-marriage advocates are not all gay—and the few brave gay people who oppose gay marriage deserve our special thanks).

Each of us has the right to live as we choose, but none of us has the right to redefine marriage, which was created by God not government.

Bishop McKinney ends with this simple, powerful truth:

"To suggest the prominent leaders of African-American churches are in the fight for marriage as the result of 'race-baiting' is unjust and indeed patronizing on the part of media elites at MSNBC.Marriage, and the black church, deserve better."

NOM's website, Twitter account, blog, and Facebook page were all illegally attacked and briefly shut down this week. Thanks to all of you who have responded by reaching down and helping us pay for the expensive job of fixing the problem and protecting NOM's voice from attacks like these.

They are becoming increasingly bold in taking illegal action, because gay marriage advocates don't believe that you and I have a basic moral and civil right to disagree with their views and stand up for marriage.

Nothing else explains how the single most "establishment" gay-rights organization, whose head serves in the Obama campaign as a major fundraiser, has no problem posting on its website illegally-obtained tax information.

You are being attacked in this way not because you are hateful or bigoted—but because you, the decent, loving, law-abiding majority in this country, have through NOM exercised your core civil rights to participate in this great democracy of ours.

NOM is under attacks like these not because we are the most hateful, or even hateful at all, but because we are the single most effective single-issue national organization fighting to protect marriage.

Thank you again for all that you've made it possible for NOM to do. To be your voice for your values is something I treasure.

Please pray for every leader, black or white, Christian, Jew or atheist, brave enough to stand up for something as good as the idea that in order to make a marriage you need a husband and wife willing to give themselves to each other and their children.

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.

13 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," wrote "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

    Marriage corruption supporters are at war with the laws of nature; probably because the laws of nature stand as a painful reminder of how wrong they are.

  2. Rob
    Posted April 12, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Hey Brian -- stop f-ing with our taxes (by denying us the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples) and the gays will stop f-ing with yours. What comes around goes around. Karma is a bitch, isn't it brian?

  3. Robert
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    "They are becoming increasingly bold in taking illegal action, because gay marriage advocates don't believe that you and I have a basic moral and civil right to disagree with their views and stand up for marriage."

    Whoa, hold on there. I'm a gay marriage advocate, but I also think you have a right to disagree. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". So please don't generalize your opponents.

  4. Paul Cook-Giles
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    >Each of us has the right to live as we choose,
    >but none of us has the right to redefine marriage,
    >which was created by God not government.

    Well, Brian, thank you for that little crumb; I'm sure that all Americans are grateful for your endorsement of our right to live as we choose. And I understand your stance that God, not government, created marriage. So when will you be surrendering that extraneous, unnecessary civil marriage license you hold? After all, you don't need to be able to file a joint Federal tax return, do you?

  5. ResistSSA
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Hey Rob -

    You can have the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples, you just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex.

    Since same-sex couples are unable to serve the important state/societal purpose of uniting moms and dads with their offspring - they, in fact, do the opposite - they are incapable of being married, by definition. Same-sex couples are the antithesis of married couples; they should be discouraged on that basis.

  6. Posted April 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Rob said (edited for the sake of decency and civility), "Hey Brian -- stop... with our taxes (by denying us the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples) and the gays will stop ... with yours.

    You'll be pleased to know that "gays" or those with same-sex attraction, or straight people who engage in homosexual behavior, or "gay" people who engage in homosexual behavior and/or heterosexual behavior, are already NOT prohibited from marriage tax advantages, if they choose to enter into marriage with a consenting member of the opposite sex, as is their right. Your fellow citizens don't make sexual orientation an eligibility requirement for marriage; furthermore, your sexual orientation is of no legal or private interest to your fellow citizens, and is considered your own private business, and of zero public interest.

    You'll recall that singles can't claim marriage benefits, and neither can siblings, or parents and adult kids. Neither can groups. Really, what's "gay" got to do with it?

  7. Paul Cook-Giles
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Oh, please. Opponents of civil marriage equality have been trotting out the "gay people can get married; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex!" canard for years. This is akin to Mr Ford's assertion that people could buy any color car they wanted, as long as they wanted black. But nobody said it better than the California Supremes: "... it is sophistic to suggest that ... the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person‟s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. "
    (In re Marriage Cases, 2008)

  8. Posted April 14, 2012 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    Paul quoted,"making such a choice would require the negation of the person‟s sexual orientation"

    They say it, but they don't really back it up with fact. Furthermore, "orientation" is a murky subject. Some people are sexually oriented towards several individuals at one time. Why not legalize their multiple relationships as marriage?

    The fine judges of CA do know a thing or two about sophistry, don't they?

    Perhaps you can explain, if marriage laws are designed to purposefully discriminate against those who participate in homosexual activity, why opposite-sexed siblings (of any orientation) or even same-sexed homosexual siblings are denied marriage licenses?

    Really, what's "gay" got to do with it?

  9. Fitz
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Paul Cook-Giles

    If an apple is different than an orange than...
    Two apples are distinct from two oranges...
    & each is distinct from apple & an orange.

    The above is not "sophistry" its a hard reality that gay people cant handle or admit too....

    Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.”
    Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

    Quoting Professor Germain Grisez

    :

    “Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”

  10. Skooter McGoo
    Posted April 15, 2012 at 4:00 am | Permalink

    Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.

  11. Jamie Wardley
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I don't believe there is any evidence linking the HRC to this activity, nor is there evidence on who hijacked NOM's social media properties. It seems these are all false allegations, or accusations without any proof to back them up. Most people call that slander.

  12. Chairm
    Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    Jamie Wardley, HRC posted the stolen information; HRC claimed it was attained from someone within the IRS.

    HRC attached itself to this.

    Now, what is the extent of the HRC involvement? That is what the investigation and legal process ought to address forthrightly. You agree?

  13. Chairm
    Posted April 17, 2012 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    An SSMer quoted the California Supreme Court; and Daughter of Eve aptly responded.

    I'd add that a license to marry does not negate nor affirm one's "sexual orientation". It is a license that clarifies eligiblity to enter into the social institution of marriage which the government, on behalf of society, recognizes as being of societal significance.

    That the judges imagined otherwise is a sign of their sophistry rather than a justification for the pro-SSM opinion.

    The special status of marriage is not based on affirmation of sexual orientation; but clearly the SSM idea is to affirm homosexual orientation and to attach that to marriage law.

    That is the clear line of thinking that the SSMer provided by that qutoe from the pro-SSM court opinion.

    Now, if SSMers want to make the case for a moral equivalence between this or that kind of same-sex sexual behavior and the coital relations of husband and wife, they might give it a shot, but we are told by SSMers far and wide that sexual behavior (and related stuff) is irrelevant and is indeed an illegitimate basis for good lawmaking on marriage.

    In fact, they claim that moral claims are irrelevant, too. So what does that leave for them to base their complaint against the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage?

    If someone can spot something other than an utter reliance on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics, please point it out.

    In the meantime, if the IRS-related felony is excused by SSMers, then, we can take that as yet another example of such an assertion of supremacy over the rule of law.