NOM denied restraining order

NOM, which was founded in 2007 by Maggie Gallagher and politics professor Robert George, gave more than $2 million last year to support California’s Proposition 8, a referendum banning gay marriage that passed with the support of 52 percent of voters.

This year, NOM donated more than $1.5 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, a group that encouraged voters to pass Proposition 1, which overturns the state’s law permitting gay marriage, signed into law by Gov. John Baldacci in May.

Last Tuesday, 53 percent of Maine voters voted to overturn the law, which allows same-sex couples to marry and individuals in religious groups to refuse to officiate at such marriages.

“The vote in Maine was important to supporters of the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife because it showed that this understanding of marriage continues to enjoy majority support even in a liberal Northeastern state,” George said in an e-mail. “With the victory in Maine, conjugal marriage has prevailed in all 31 states in which the issue has been put to the people in a referendum.”

“This weakens what has been a very effective talking point for those supporting redefinition, namely, the idea that redefinition is inevitable,” George added. “If it can be resisted in liberal states such as Wisconsin, California, and Maine, it is not inevitable.”

The denial of the restraining order came after gay marriage advocate Fred Karger filed a complaint against NOM, asking for an investigation into the organization’s finances. On Oct. 1, the Maine ethics commission voted to begin examining the organization’s finances and donor list, which the group has refused to release. Maine election laws mandate the disclosure of the names of donors who give more than $5,000 to support referendum efforts, but NOM argued that this requirement could stifle free speech.

“I want to do everything I can to make sure that NOM complies with election laws,” Karger said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian. “I’ve been in politics for over 30 years, and I’ve never seen such disregard for the law.”

In denying the restraining order sought by NOM, Hornby wrote, “I deny the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order because I conclude that the defendants are likely to succeed on the merits of this dispute.”

“But given the heartland First Amendment interests at stake for individuals or groups involved in issue advocacy,” Hornby continued, “the caselaw makes clear that Maine cannot impose all the extensive impositions and PAC-style burdens used in regulating candidate elections.”

NOM attorney Barry Bostrom explained that NOM is under “no legal requirement” to release donor information since the Maine commission has not yet ruled that the group must disclose its donors.

“Under no circumstances is NOM legally required generally to release its donors,” Gallagher said in an e-mail. “No pending legal case would force us to do so, or any other 501(c)4 organization. It is not legally required and we certainly won’t volunteer to put people in the position of getting the kind of hate mail, threats and intimidation that Prop 8 donors have gone through.”