NOM's Chairman John Eastman has published a column in USAToday which we urge you to read and share!
"...For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.
The release of NOM's confidential tax return to the Human Rights Campaign is the canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party groups was an error in judgment by low-level IRS bureaucrats, the release of NOM's confidential data to a group headed by an Obama campaign co-chair suggests the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.
That's the reason the IRS has not been very interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. Federal investigators have interviewed NOM officials about the matter, but our efforts to find out what has become of the investigation have been stonewalled at every turn."
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal lists our case as a possible example of the IRS targeting groups for ideological reasons:
• In March 2012, the Puffington Host published a confidential form that the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had filed with the IRS. The website obtained the document from the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-same-sex-marriage outfit. In a press release issued today, NOM says its analysis of the images "has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service."
Matt K. Lewis of The Daily Caller points out that most reporters have neglected to report that the IRS is guilty not only of targeting conservative groups, but also of leaking NOM's private tax documents -- clearly a broader investigation is needed:
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
This news should prompt a renewed investigation into how our confidential tax documents were released by the IRS:
The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.
Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.
In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.
...Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. (AP)
Brian Brown spoke with the Associated Press about the fact that gay marriage will be a political issue in the next elections in states where legislators -- especially Republican legislators -- voted to redefine marriage:
"...opponents of gay marriage say Delaware lawmakers will face consequences for supporting the measure, which cleared the Senate on a 12-9 vote and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell barely half an hour later.
“I think there will be some people that will be replaced,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage.
Brown said he thinks both Cloutier and Rep. Michael Ramone of Newark, the only other Republican lawmaker to vote for gay marriage, will be defeated if they seek re-election.
“Either in a primary or in a general election, we don’t really care,” Brown said, adding that plenty of Democrats oppose gay marriage.
“The reality is that these were very close votes, even with a supermajority of Democrats in Delaware,” he noted. “They needed 11, they got 12.”
While gay marriage is now the law of Delaware, Brown said his group would work to overturn it.
“It may take a long time ... but we’ll continue to fight and continue to support candidates who support traditional marriage,” he said."
Roll Call's David Hawkings pours cold water on the notion that gay marriage is a political no-brainer -- the reality is gay marriage is very politically risky (because the American people support marriage) and smart politicians sense that:
"...[Sen.] Portman’s open wavering [on ENDA] suggests that, one year after President Barack Obama announced his own election-year conversion to supporting gay marriage, the political momentum is neither as intense nor as one-directional as it might appear. Of the 166 sponsors of ENDA in the House, for example, only three are Republicans: Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Pennsylvania’s Charlie Dent and New York’s Richard Hanna."
Harold Mass of The Week acknowledges that the GOP is firmly pro-marriage and Brady's ouster is a sign of that fact:
In a widely expected move, embattled Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady resigned on Tuesday. Brady said he wanted to spend more time with his family as his wife fights cancer, but social conservatives have been calling for Brady's head for months. They're angry over his support for a gay marriage bill floated in the state legislature this year — the latest in a series of similar measures taken up across the country.
...No matter how Brady's departure is spun, the takeaway is that the Illinois GOP is doubling down on its opposition to gay marriage. Though "it's pretty clear that support for marriage equality is what forced [Brady] out of office," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. After he came out for the marriage bill, 50 conservatives called for his resignation at a meeting in April.
Pro-marriage activists in Minnesota are wasting no time responding to a Minnesota lawmaker who says he plans to vote for SSM, despite the fact that over 60% of his district voted to protect marriage last November:
Doug Kern, deputy chair of the Crow Wing County Republican Party, said Monday he is starting a recall petition against Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, in the wake of the lawmaker’s announcement that he will support gay marriage legislation.
Kern said he started the effort because of Radinovich’s stand on the issue despite last fall’s vote totals on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Even though the measure was defeated statewide, House District 10B voters favored the proposed constitutional amendment, garnering 62.5 percent of the vote.
“He’s supposed to represent the people,” Kern said.
Kern said the vote to legalize gay marriage would threaten religious freedom. He said while legislation has language to protect pastors it doesn’t protect Sunday school teachers and Bible study leaders. (Brainer Dispatch)
Please continue to contact him and other Minnesota lawmakers.
After an election which saw the UK Independence Party go from 7 seats to 147, most at the expense of the Conservative Party, PM David Cameron is being urged to ditch his advocacy of redefining marriage:
He was warned that if he did not take urgent action to protect traditional Tory values, members of his own party would desert him for Nigel Farage.
Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, said his constituents were "fed up to the back teeth" because the Government failed to deliver on promises.
He challenged Mr Cameron to adopt a plan which includes scrapping the gay marriage Bill, freezing the overseas aid budget, opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, cutting immigration and holding a prompt EU referendum, The Times reported.
... Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."
The Christian Institute reports that the Conservative Party in the UK is potentially facing huge losses in tomorrow's elections due to the Prime Minister's policies pushing same-sex marriage:
The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, reveals that one in four of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say the policy is putting them off voting for the Party again.
Asked, “Does the Coalition Government’s plans to legalise same sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for each of these parties in next week’s local elections?” 26 per cent of Conservative 2010 voters say less likely.
Fewer than one in ten (nine per cent) say they are more likely to vote Tory again because of gay marriage.
And 22 per cent of those polled said they were planning to vote for UKIP, which opposes gay marriage.
Read more here.
A new poll conducted by Harper Polling for Conservative Intel. The poll differentiated between states where same-sex marriage is not yet recognized, and those where marriage has been redefined... and the results are telling:
We asked the entire sample of 2,375 likely voters, “Do you support or oppose a measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman?” The result was 60 percent in favor. Sixty-five percent of people in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage say they would support such a measure. In states where same-sex marriage is legal, the result was tied, 45 percent in favor to 45 percent against.
Although this seems to betray an incoherent view on the topic by many respondents, it also suggests that the “one man, one woman” formulation frequently used in political talk (including, at one point, by President Obama) was chosen with good reason — it is something people find it easy to agree with.
The complete poll results can be seen here.
April 17, 2013 – 10:30 am
"Tulsa's Own" NewsOn6.com has the story:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.
The resolution sponsored by Norman Republican Sen. Rob Standridge was quickly adopted Tuesday on a voice vote. The House passed the resolution unanimously last week....
[The bill's] authors say it is meant to send a message to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage rights.
April 15, 2013 – 11:15 am
Pro-marriage GOP grassroots in action:
While the State Central Committee of the Illinois Republican Party was meeting in Tinley Park to discuss the retention of Pat Brady as Chairman following his lobbying for gay marriage, a crowd that surged to 150 people at one time gathered in front of State Rep. Ed Sullivan’s district office in Mundelein to protest his recently announced intention to vote for the same-sex marriage bill currently being considered in Springfield.
The rally organizers told Illinois Review that the rally was organized in just a few days, and the fact that so many people came out to protest is a clear indication of the true majority voice of the district.
The protest included a number of elected Republican officials, including current and former GOP township chairs and precinct committeemen. (Illinois Review)
Chris Moody, political reporter for Yahoo! News, just tweeted the update.
Update -- more from the Washington Post:
The Republican National Committee passed resolutions Friday reaffirming its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and calling on the Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage” as it weighs rulings on two landmark cases involving gay marriage.
... One of the resolutions affirms the committee’s “support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America.”
... “The Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act,” reads the RNC’s resolution.
April 10, 2013 – 11:00 am
Rusty Reno, editor of First Things, makes the conservative case against the false libertarian notion that redefining marriage will serve to "limit government" -- in fact, it will vastly expand government, he argues:
"...As marriage gets redefined we’ll see an expansion of government. That’s because gay marriage won’t just happen if government “gets out of the way.” It requires creating a new possibility that will not come to pass if traditional institutions and moral traditions are left alone. Government must intervene. Our moral traditions must be subjected to what activists think of as corrective surgery. With gay marriage we’re sure to get legislation redefining what it means to be a parent, and what it means to be a child, as is already the case in California. In the way of these redefinitions will come programs to “reeducate” John Q. Public to the “new realities.”
Here as elsewhere the progressive project is always political. It sees a problem: The pre-political institutions and traditions of society are violating rights and creating inequalities. Then it reaches for the ready tool for redress and correction, which is almost always the power of government—coercive force.
... Tyranny isn’t just a situation in which the government is telling you what to do at every moment. It’s also a society in which government says that, if necessary, it can. In this respect gay marriage reflects a dramatic enlargement of government. If legislatures and courts can redefine marriage, what can’t it intervene to reshape and re-purpose?
