Open Letter to Maggie Gallagher

Like millions of Americans, I was able to see the absolute joy experienced by hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who are now able to legally marry in Washington, DC. I wept when I saw television reports of couples who have been together, some for decades, finally able to share in the joy and happiness afforded automatically to their straight brothers and sisters.

Hooray for the Washington, DC City Council and Mayor Fenty for allowing all its residents full equality under the law just like our founding fathers intended.

I cried with joy for all the young LGBTQ Americans who can clearly see that they are not inferior, but equal. I am thrilled that kids growing up now know that they can marry the person that they love in five enlightened states, and in our nation’s capitol.

Hooray for our courageous leaders who stood up to bigotry and discrimination and did the right thing. They stood up to you and your army of paid henchmen who fight marriage equality tooth and nail every step of the way.

I don’t have words to express my disgust toward you and all those you are fronting for at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). You have spent at least $25 million in just the past few years to try and undo the happiness of so many people. Hundreds of couples lined up in the cold and rain of Washington last Wednesday in order get a license so they could finally marry the one they love.

Why are you, all your financial backers and all your high-priced attorneys across the country hell-bent on destroying so many lives and hurting so many people, just as they are about to experience the happiest day of their lives?

What is so wrong with your life, that you make your living attempting to hurt so many others?

You preside over two extremely well funded organizations that portend to “protect marriage.” You speak all over the county at marriage rallies. You are on TV all the time defending what you call the “sanctity of marriage.” You have written books on marriage, one of which is even titled, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially, yet NOM’s Executive Director, Brian Brown and you viciously attack anyone who gets in your way.

Are You Even Married, Maggie?

No one has ever seen your husband. You attend countless marriage events, chock full of married couples, celebrating marriage, yet you always, always show up alone.

I had the displeasure of attending your recent presentation at the CATO Institute in Washington, DC. I was amazed to see that you don’t wear a wedding ring. No rings on any fingers. Where is your alleged husband? Why no ring?

Just last year, NOM proudly said it spent over $8 million in a dozen states in your recently released “Investor’s Report.”

That doesn’t even include the millions more in attorney’s fees and money raised through your 501(c)3 charitable fund.

You fight people’s happiness at the ballot box, state legislatures and through too many law suits to count.

Recently, NOM has lead the effort to undo the Washington, DC law through every means possible, including going to Congress, the courts, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Brian Brown’s angry email from Friday states, “Don’t believe the lies. It’s not over in D.C. by any means.”

Where Does All Your Money Come From?

You continually hide where all your millions come from on your extremely late or never reported federal income tax filings. You refuse to cooperate with the California and Maine Ethics Commissions (both of whom are currently investigating your National Organization for Marriage), and when these investigations began into your many campaign irregularities, you sued both states to stop their investigation in an attempt to intimidate those seeking the truth.

Anyone who dares to support equality becomes the victim of your venom and hate.

We will not be intimidated. We refuse to allow you, and all those paying your salary, to hurt any more young people.

We have enlisted our own army to fight NOM and you at every turn. We are dedicated to finding out the truth about you and the front group that you head. And we will not rest until your cover of secrecy and deceit is lifted.

Mother Jones cover and inside spread

He was one of the GOP's top dark-arts operators. Now he

Who’s that masked man gracing the pages of Mother Jones? It’s the founder of Californians Against Hate, Fred Karger. Check out the table of contents, read the article online, or grab a copy at your local newsstand.

The banner ad ran online at the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Boston Globe and the Salt Lake Tribune websites

From Ben Smith’s Politico column – January 20, 2010:

Gay group targets Romney

My colleague Ken Vogel reports that a California political operative whose hardball opposition to California’s 2008 anti-same-sex-marriage initiative generated controversy has set his sights on Mitt Romney:

Fred Karger, a prominent gay rights activist, later this week will launch a campaign urging Romney to lobby the Mormon Church to back down from its opposition to same-sex marriage.

Romney’s Mormonism hurt him during his unsuccessful 2008 bid for the GOP presidential nomination. And Karger’s campaign nods toward Romney’s 2012 presidential ambitions. Not only is it debuting roughly two years before New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary, but it will launch with an ad on the websites of the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Boston Globe and The Salt Lake Tribune.

The ad will link to the website of a new group called Rights Equal Rights, which is funded in part by Californians Against Hate, a leading opponent of the anti-same-sex ballot initiative. The website asserts that “as a national political leader and influential member of the Mormon Church, Mitt Romney could persuade church leaders to end their 15 years of active involvement, including their massive financial support, to oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.”

Kim Farrah, a spokeswoman for the Mormon Church, pointed out that the church itself “did not spend tens of millions of dollars in campaigns to ban gay marriages” — as Rights Equal Rights’ website claims — but also defended the church’s ability “to speak out on moral issues as part of the Democratic process.”

Though Romney holds no official role within the church beyond being a member, its leaders and membership strongly backed his 2008 presidential campaign and can be expected to align behind him if he runs again in 2012.

While reminders of Romney’s Mormonism won’t help him with the broader GOP electorate, reminders of his opposition to same-sex marriage might buoy his standing with social conservatives. In 2008, they held against him a pledge he made (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Romneys_tonal_shift.html) during a 1994 Senate race to be a stronger advocate for gay rights than his opponent, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), a champion of the gay community.

A Romney spokesman declined to comment on Karger’s effort, though during the presidential campaign, his aides asserted that his stances never shifted on gay issues. They pointed out that he had long been on record opposed to same-sex marriage, as well as discrimination against gays.

But Karger charged Romney had “flip-flopped. The new Mitt Romney would be a disaster for the gay community as president.”

Still, Karger asserted the target of his campaign is not Romney but, rather, the Mormon Church, which supported the California initiative.

Posted by Ben Smith 02:34 PM

Prop 8 screenings draw standing ovations, but no LDS officials

Last night, I attended the Salt Lake City screening of “8: The Mormon Proposition,” the Sundance documentary about the LDS Church’s role in overturning gay marriage in California.

The film, as has become a trend (see video below), enjoyed an extended standing ovation from the audience. But co-director Steven Greenstreet complained that LDS Church officials still have not accepted his offer for a free ticket to see the film and discuss it.

It’s doubtful an LDS general authority or public-affairs person will turn up at one of the remaining screenings and sound off in a Q&A.

But here’s what some others had to say after the film showed at the Tower Theatre.

• Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate said he is getting ready to file a “supplemental complaint” with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging unreported LDS Church contributions to the Prop 8 campaign based on new evidence introduced during a federal trial going on now in San Francisco.
• “This is not a gay issue,” said former Mormon Emily Pearson, who was interviewed in the film. “It’s very important that straight people get noisy and courageous.”
• Tyler Barrick, who’s marriage to Spencer Jones is featured in the film, said he has achieved what his sisters have not: When Barrick was a child, he said, “my mom would go on and on and on about how my sisters would grow up to marry returned missionaries. And I was the first one to do it.”
• Linda Stay, Barrick’s mom, said she picked her son over her Mormon religion, and she hopes to inspire other moms to do the same. Most of all, she said, she did it for her LDS grandkids. “Some day they will know that this mom stood on the side of her kids.”

LGBT FYI is a blog about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Rosemary Winters covers politics and LGBT issues for The Salt Lake Tribune. Since joining The Tribune in 2003, she has written about small business, global warming, city governments, sexuality and Utah’s involvement in California’s Proposition 8. During the 2009 legislative session, she outed former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. — as a supporter of civil unions.

Via Chris Morrow, Fred Karger’s iReport:

Fred Karger went to the Prop8 Trial in San Francisco and took one of my cameras to document it. He interviewed: Stuart Milk – Nephew of Harvey Milk, Theresa Stewart – Chief Deputy City Attorney San Francisco, Adam Hahn – young activist, and David Boies – Boies, Schiller, & Flexner.

Video by: Chris Morrow:

I’m in Sacramento today and spoke with Richard Stapler and Fred Karger. They talk about the trial and their opinions. Fred is going to the trial and I gave him a camera to document – watch out for that video Saturday!

Follow Chris coverage on Prop8 on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morrowchris

Ex-Political Pundit Embraces Gay Rights Activism

Fred Karger’s activism blossomed in the fight to preserve the now-defunct Boom Boom Room, seen here in an informal memorial garden for AIDS victims near the nightclub.

By Jennifer Erickson

Laguna Beach resident Fred Karger’s fight against the 2008 California ballot initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal has transformed him into a nationally known gay advocate as well as a target of a daunting lawsuit.

Yet, Karger, 59, had not even come out publicly until 2006 when beginning a local campaign to “Save the Boom,” the legendary gay Laguna Beach nightclub that closed in 2007.

Having worked as a political consultant in Los Angeles for 27 years, Karger’s activism was public, but his sexual orientation was very private. “I was scared to death of being found out,” said Karger of his years of secrecy. “Looking back, it’s hard to even imagine what I went through, the fear of being discovered for so many years…”

Karger’s involvement in politics began at the tender age of 10, attending a press conference with his grandmother in the suburbs of Chicago where he grew up. “I just always loved it,” he said, adding that he used to ride his bike to the local campaign headquarters of various politicians.

But political activism was a volunteer activity for Karger, who moved to Los Angeles after graduating from college in 1973. He didn’t consider it a career option and instead worked as an actor for three years. When his work became politics, Karger’s acting took on a more personal dimension.

After volunteering for the campaign of a state senator, Karger was hired by a political consulting firm run by Bill Roberts, who became his mentor. Their first major client was a state senator from Long Beach, George Deukmejian, then running for attorney general. The firm helped Deukmejian’s subsequent race for governor.

Karger worked for Roberts until his untimely death in 1988. By then, Karger was a partner in the firm, which would shift to corporate clients from politicians over the next decade.

Until his retirement to Laguna Beach in 2004, Karger successfully played the role of a straight man. “My acting background probably helped me put on a good act for a long time,” he said, admitting to an 11-year relationship with another man that neither his employer nor family knew about.

In Laguna, the tables turned. Instead of hiding his orientation to save his job, Karger’s self-appointed job is now to “save” gay rights.

“This is a very powerful story, because it is a story that is replicated all over the country and the world, the story of a man growing up who is gay and unable to deal with it for lots of reasons,” said Bob Gentry, Laguna’s first openly gay mayor, whom Karger considers his hero.

That Karger’s activism dovetailed so seamlessly with his coming out should be no surprise, Gentry said, since newfound freedom is empowering.

Saving the Boom saved Karger. He lamented the closing of gay bars in Santa Barbara, and was afraid that Laguna’s fate might be the same. He looked to Gentry for advice. “He gave me a pep talk and said ‘Don’t be afraid, you’re doing the right thing. Be proud of what you’re doing.’”

The Boom effort won him recognition in the gay community and proved the perfect segue into a far bigger battle.

Karger’s years of experience in politics attuned him to the need to question the role of big donors in the anti gay marriage Prop. 8 campaign. He looked at similar battles in other states and found that no one was challenging major donor opponents there either. Karger decided to take up the gauntlet, though it made some uneasy.

Since establishing Californians Against Hate in July 2008, Karger has strived for full disclosure of the people and organizations financing the campaign against gay marriage rights. “I wanted to make it socially unacceptable for people to give massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority,” said Karger. And despite voter approval of Proposition 8, he believes that has been accomplished, though not without personal cost to him.

Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission against the Mormon Church in November 2008 for failing to report numerous non-monetary contributions to ProtectMarriage. com, a coalition formed to support Prop 8. The enforcement division of the FPPC subsequently opened an investigation of the allegations made in the complaint.

When gay marriage opponents began supporting an initiative last year in Maine to overturn same-sex weddings, Karger called for another investigation, writing Maine’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices and its attorney general, detailing alleged election law violations by Stand for Marriage Maine.

Karger’s activism in September led to his entanglement in a federal lawsuit. He was served a subpoena by the National Organization for Marriage, organized to oppose same-sex marriage in state legislatures, in its suit against top California state officials over public records.

Karger anticipated what he believes is retaliation. The subpoena compels him to produce a daunting amount of records for Californians Against Hate since January 2008. He retained Stevens, O’Connell and Jacobs to represent him.

Gentry believes that Karger’s fight for transparency is fundamental to suppressing oppression of gay and lesbian people. Gentry is convinced that Karger’s opponents are trying to silence him since “they do not want our voice because our voice is a voice of honesty and transparency. Their voice is a voice of innuendo, prejudice and bigotry.”

It turns out, the subpoena held a silver lining, literally and figuratively. Last month, under both the emotional and financial strain, Karger set up a legal defense fund, “FiveforFred.com,” requesting five-dollar donations from supporters in an email plea. He discovered just how many people are already behind him.

He’s received more than $18,000 from people all over the country, much of it in five-dollar contributions. “The fact that I’ve gotten this huge amount of support is so meaningful and gratifying. Quite frankly it makes all the difference,” he said, and will help pay for the latest invoices from his attorneys.

According to Gentry, Karger “is becoming a hero to thousands of people who hear about him, because he gives them the strength to be themselves.”

Peter Janssen, a vice president at Macmillan, set up a display yesterday at the American Historical Association convention at the Manchester Grand Hyatt. Photograph: Eduardo Contreras

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Historians embroiled in present-day battle

Presentation on marriage planned at boycotted hotel

By John Wilkens, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Thursday, January 7, 2010 at 12:23 a.m.

Professional historians usually concern themselves with the past, but this week in San Diego they’ll be immersed in one of the most contentious issues of the present — same-sex marriage.

The annual convention of the 125-year-old American Historical Association, held here for the first time, will feature a 15-session “mini-convention” on various aspects of matrimony, including how its definition has evolved through time.

These free meetings, which start today and are open to the public, came about because of where the convention is being held — the Manchester Grand Hyatt on San Diego’s waterfront.

The 1,625-room resort has been the subject of a boycott by gay-rights activists since July 2008. They targeted the hotel after its owner, developer Doug Manchester, contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8, the successful ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

To prepare for its 2010 conference, the historical association reserved space at the hotel in 2003. A year ago — two months after Proposition 8 had passed — some of the group’s members asked that the boycott be honored.

But canceling would have cost almost $800,000 in reservation fees and penalties, said Arnita Jones, the association’s executive director. “We’ve been around a long time, but our members are college professors, history teachers and librarians, and we aren’t a wealthy organization,” she said.

The board instead voted for the addition of a mini-convention and authorized spending up to $100,000 to support it.

“Historians aren’t policymakers and they don’t tell people what to do, but they can provide context, give us depth and help people see that they aren’t the first generation to be troubled by this issue,” said association President Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian from Harvard University.

Backers of the boycott said they have mixed feelings about the gathering of historians and the conference within a conference. They plan to demonstrate on Saturday afternoon at the hotel, as they’ve done during other conventions.

“I love the fact that they are reaching out and discussing the issue,” said Fred Karger, head of Californians Against Hate. “I just wish they would do it anywhere else but at the Manchester. It’s a real slap in the face to the gay community.”

He noted that the association also reserved blocks of rooms in other local hotels. “If they’re sincere in their efforts, they should hold those sessions at one of the other venues,” he said.

Jones said moving the presentations off-site was considered, “but the leadership didn’t want to divide the meeting or isolate the work on marriage as something that’s not mainstream history.”

She said that some of the association’s members have declined to attend because of the boycott, “but we’ve had a great many more comments from those who support what we’ve done.”

Karger and Cleve Jones, another prominent gay-rights activist, said they believe the boycott has been a success, pointing to several organizations that have canceled events there. They said it has cost the hotel at least $7 million.

But Kelly Commerford, director of marketing for the Manchester Grand Hyatt, said occupancy has remained strong despite the controversy and the struggling economy.

“Really, this so-called boycott has had limited impact on the hotel,” he said.

Arnita Jones, who has served as executive director of the historical association for 11 years, said she’s unaware of her group ever doing something similar at its annual convention, which is expected to draw about 4,000 historians through Sunday.

The conference will feature dozens of presentations on diverse topics such as oceans, Helen Keller, Google, Charles Darwin, peyote and vampires.

“The leadership wanted to do more than just say ‘no’ to the boycott,” Jones said. “They began thinking that the conversation in California could benefit from some historical research that’s been done on the family in general and marriage in particular over the last couple decades.”

A call for papers led to sessions on a range of issues including medieval marriage; the influence of governments, churches and communities on marriage restrictions; the politics of marriage in early America; and interethnic marriage.

A central theme emerging from all the research is that there may be no such thing as “traditional” marriage, Ulrich said.

“Which tradition?” she said. “Whose tradition?”

Her specialty is colonial America, and it was the New England Puritans who made one of the first major changes in marriage, turning it from a purely religious ceremony into a civil one.

“Because it was a contract, it could be broken,” Ulrich said. “It wasn’t common, and it wasn’t easy, but it was now possible in a way it hadn’t been before. That’s something that amazes people with certain stereotypes about the Puritans.”

She pointed to more recent changes, including a 1949 California Supreme Court decision that ended bans on marriage between people of different racial backgrounds.

“We can argue about what marriage should be today,” Ulrich said. “But we cannot argue that marriage has always been the same.”

The American Historical Association is the largest and oldest group of its kind in the country, with 14,000 members.

They include college professors, graduate students, primary-school teachers and historians at museums, libraries and archives.

John Wilkens: (619) 293-2236; john.wilkens@uniontrib.com

Michelangelo Signorile can be heard on Sirius OutQ 109

Click the arrow above to hear Sirius XM Satellite Radio talk show host Michelangelo Signorile talk about the FiveForFred campaign.

The Michelangelo Signorile Show broadcasts Monday through Friday, 2-6 p.m. ET (11-3 PT), on Sirius OutQ 109, and can be heard across the continental United States and all of Canada. OutQ on Sirius Satellite Radio is America’s only 24/7 radio station from and for the LGBT community. Listen in at any time by getting a free three-day pass.

Campaign Clarity Needed

By BDN Staff

A lawsuit involving a national group opposed to gay marriage has far-reaching implications for the state’s campaign reporting and financing laws, especially since the National Organization for Marriage said it plans to advocate for supporters of “traditional marriage” in next year’s election.

In October, NOM filed suit in federal court claiming Maine’s referendum campaign finance reporting requirements were overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional. Earlier this month, the group amended its complaint to U.S. District Court to include candidate elections. If its challenge is upheld, it would leave a big hole in the state’s reporting requirements and its Clean Election financing program, which relies on candidates’ reporting of donations to determine whether matching funds are warranted.

The group, based in New Jersey, contributed nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, which successfully advocated a repeal of the state law allowing same-sex couples to marry. NOM has refused to disclose to state election officials where its money came from. State law requires groups or individuals that raise more than $5,000 to support or oppose a ballot question to register as a ballot question committee. Anyone who donates more than $100 to the committee must be identified in campaign finance reports.

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is investigating whether NOM violated state campaign finance laws by refusing to name its donors in connection with Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Attorneys for the group have argued that listing donors would discourage contributions because people would be afraid of retaliation.

Gay marriage is an emotional issue, but citing fear as a reason to flout the law is an unpersuasive argument, especially when thousands of donors are named — complete with their home or businesses addresses and occupations — on campaign finance reporting forms filed by groups on both sides of Question 1. National groups have been involved in many contentious campaigns since Maine’s reporting requirements have been in place. None has refused to comply with the law.

At the same time, there are varying levels of compliance. Some groups simply list “fund transfer” as a source of funding.

NOM’s argument that it raises money nationally to be used in many different states, rather than for a campaign in a specific state, is more complex. A close look at the group’s fundraising literature will clarify whether it was raising money for the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine. If it was, reporting is necessary, as it should also be for other national groups that contribute to Maine campaigns.

It may be that lawmakers need to reconsider Maine’s ballot committee law to clarify how such national fundraising should be handled, especially since it could influence Clean Election funding next year.

The bottom line is that Maine voters should be able to know who is trying to influence their vote.