Let's start with Maine's No on 1 campaign. We lost. So sorry, Maine gays. You're still not quite human.

The problem with gay-marriage referendums is, it's about civil rights. Civil rights exist because your legal status shouldn't depend on popular opinion. If we'd had referendums in 1964 about the Civil Rights Act, it would still be illegal for Heidi Klum to marry Seal. Seems silly, right? That's because it is.

With 87 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday morning, 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement. Polls had suggested a much closer race.

Maine voters also decided to expand the state’s 10-year-old medical marijuana law, approving a ballot question to allow state-regulated dispensaries to grow the drug and sell it to patients. The vote comes weeks after the Obama administration announced it would not prosecute patients and distributors who are in "clear and unambiguous" compliance with state laws. Maine will be the third state, after New Mexico and Rhode Island, to allow tightly regulated, nonprofit marijuana dispensaries.

Yeah, polls suggested a much closer race because people are so reluctant to admit they're homophobic. But hey, how about those stoners? Closeted Maine Republicans can still get high, so you got that going for you.

In one bright spot, the law expanding gay rights to "everything but marriage" in Washington state looks like it might win.

CA-10

We won, with a strong progressive, too. How does this fit with bobblehead "Obama is dead" logic? Head. Must. Explode. Does. Not. Compute.

Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi will soon trade his state title for that of congressman after an expected victory Tuesday in the face of a surprisingly tough GOP challenger.

Garamendi easily beat Republican challenger David Harmer of Dougherty despite late cash infusions from the national party and an enthusiastic volunteer corps.

Outspent 2-to-1 in the heavily Democratic 10th district, the virtually unknown Republican David Harmer mustered just 39 percent of the vote, vowing to tap into public angst over an obdurate recession, federal spending and health care reform.

But Garamendi repeatedly touted his broad and deep political experience, and he never retreated from his support of progressive policies.

NEW YORK CITY

In New York, incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg won - but not by that much, considering polls showing an 18-point lead. And that was despite pouring what amounted to the GDP of a small nation into his campaign fund.

Unofficial returns showed Mr. Bloomberg with 51 percent and Mr. Thompson with 46 percent. The result will make Mr. Bloomberg only the fourth three-term mayor in the last century.

“Conventional wisdom says historically third terms haven’t been too successful,” the mayor told supporters at the Sheraton New York Hotel in Midtown Manhattan around midnight after a tense night of watching returns. “But we’ve spent the last eight years defying conventional wisdom.”

Still, the margin seemed to startle Mr. Bloomberg’s aides and the city’s political establishment, which had predicted a blowout. Published polls in the days leading up to the election suggested that the mayor would win by as many as 18 percentage points; four years ago, he cruised to re-election with a 20 percent margin.

The billionaire mayor had poured $90 million of his own fortune into the race, a sum without equal in the history of municipal politics that gave him a 14-to-1 advantage in campaign spending.

NY-23

And in the crazy NY-23 race, the one much fetishized by national bobbleheads, the Democrat beat the teabagger by three points:

SARANAC LAKE, N.Y. — Democrats won a special election in New York State’s northernmost Congressional district Tuesday, a setback for national conservatives who heavily promoted a third candidate in what became an intense debate over the direction of the Republican Party.

The Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, led with 49 percent of the vote, while the Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, had 46 percent.

NEW JERSEY

In NJ, former Goldman Sachs CEO Gov. Jon Corzine got his butt kicked by the corrupt Chris Christie. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but the Office of Public Integrity in D.C. should certainly investigate the odd lending practices of the soon-to-be governor:

In New Jersey, a former federal prosecutor, Christopher J. Christie, became the first Republican to win statewide in 12 years by vowing to attack the state’s fiscal problems with the same aggressiveness he used to lock up corrupt politicians.

He overcame a huge Democratic voter advantage and a relentless barrage of negative commercials to defeat Jon S. Corzine, an unpopular incumbent who outspent him by more than two to one and drew heavily on political help from the White House, including three visits to the state from President Obama.

“We are in a crisis; the times are extraordinarily difficult, but I stand here tonight full of hope for the future,” said Mr. Christie, 47, who will become New Jersey’s 55th governor. “Tomorrow begins the task of fixing a broken state.”

One of Corzine's biggest problems is that, like Barack Obama, his office was fiscally broken when he got there. Christine Todd Whitman left a series of landmines that didn't explode until years later - things like counting part of the teachers pension fund to "balance" the budget.

VIRGINIA

The bobbleheads are lovin' this one.

Virginians elected Republican Robert F. McDonnell the commonwealth's 71st governor Tuesday, sweeping the GOP to power and emphatically halting a decade of Democratic advances in the critical swing state.

The exclamation point on the former state attorney general's trouncing of Democratic state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds was a victory in Fairfax County, the state's most populous jurisdiction, which had delivered powerful Democratic majorities to President Obama and Govs. Timothy M. Kaine and Mark Warner. McDonnell also reversed the political order in the Washington region's outer suburbs, winning Loudoun and Prince William counties, which went for Kaine four years ago.

The bold headline on today's Washington Post? "A warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore."

Yawn. Honestly, when was the last time the Washington Post was right about anything?

Even with cognitive dissonance this striking, they still think they've got a right to withhold civil rights from a whole segment of the population:

Maggie Gallagher's disdain for Marriage Equality New York board president Cathy Marino-Thomas was palpable. The feeling, we're guessing, was mutual. The two shared the stage at Hofstra University's “Day of Dialogue," and even outside the confines of a 30-second spot, Gallagher was still trafficking in misinformation. And eye rolls.

We do appreciate the debate over whether our "intolerance" for bigotry is, by definition, hate — of the very same variety we call out and despise daily on this website. That's Gallagher's position: By labeling Prop 8 supporters as advocates of hatred, we're being intolerant ourselves, showing no respect for a difference in viewpoints.

But what Maggie does not, and may never understand is the difference between agreeing to disagree, and actively endorsing discrimination against an entire group of people. For that, we cannot be tolerant. [..]

But here's the soundbite we're holding on to, as Maggie addresses Marino-Thomas: "[Your marriage] may be better, but it's not a marriage. … It's probably better than my marriage to hear you talk about it. I wouldn't talk about my marriage in such glowing terms."

It's so sad that someone who cannot speak well of their own marriage feels it's their right to fight to keep others from having that legal union.

On a related note, it's not a serious move so much as a political statement, but here in California, someone has decided to fight a real threat to the sanctity of marriage: the ability to divorce:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.

John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."[..]:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.

While I obviously don't want my rights taken away (not that I'm planning on divorcing my husband, mind you. He's stuck with me.), I do appreciate the sentiment behind it. My gay uncle's marriage does not harm my marriage, threatens no one else's relationship and it's a ludicrous argument to claim it does. However, the ease in which we may end marriages (one-third of all first marriages end within 10 years, according to the CDC) certainly does. If these wingnuts want to hold up marriage as the foundation of society, then put up or shut up.

From The Colbert Report:

The petition signers who want to overturn the "everything but marriage" bill should be able to stay in the closet that the gay people have abandoned.

Yesterday, the No on 1 campaign released this great new ad, featuring a Catholic mom who wants nothing more than for her gay son to have the same rights as everybody else.

It seems to have touched a nerve with the other side. A Catholic group is demanding that the ad be taken down, because:

“Everybody knows the Catholic Church is opposed to counterfeit marriages. The Church believes marriage is a natural institution, vindicated by common reason that serves both men and women, and the needs of children. The Church defends marriage as a civic institution believing marriage and family to be the fundamental unit of society,” explained Burch.

“For homosexual groups to suggest that the Catholic Church believes otherwise is disingenuous, dishonest, and an insult to the intelligence of Catholic voters in Maine,” said Burch.

We are on offense here in Maine, pushing back at the Catholic Church which has raised over $214k for Stand for Marriage Maine last quarter.

But the campaign needs your help to win this election, to be the first to protect marriage rights at the ballot box, to keep the momentum up that we have gained since Prop 8. And they need the resources to do it.

We are launching a "moneybomb" for Maine, with a big push to get as much cash in the door for No on 1 by Oct 15th, the last major financial filing deadline and the first day of early voting.

After that date money in the door just isn't as useful for the campaign. They need to figure out their budget for the last few weeks of the campaign.

Give now if you can on Blue America's ActBlue page. Maine is a cheap state. Here's a breakdown of what your donation will "buy".

$1,000 we can blanket the state with radio ads for 1 day

$800 pays for one field organizer for a week

$720 would fund 20 canvasses in key counties around the state on a Saturday

$550 pays for one channel of cable for a day

$420 pays for one much needed field organizer for a week

$330 is 2 radio commercials to beat back their lies

$210 pays for 70 $3/day cell phones to talk to targeted voters

$186 about the cost of 1 radio commercial

$137 will buy supplies for 4 door-to-door canvasses

$108 buys about 100 yard signs for visibility

$72 will pay for signage for visibility for one weekend on a targeted campus

$66 pays for about 20 $3/day cell phones to talk to targeted voters

$54 buys 50 yard signs for visibility

$36 will fund supplies for one door-to-door canvass

$24 buys 20 yard signs for visibility

This is the brand new ad from the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine:

And, this is a Prop 8 ad from last fall in California:

The same consultants behind Prop 8 were hired for exactly this, drive up fear about marriage equality using lies about kids and churches. It goes without saying that Maine does not force school to talk about marriage equality, in fact they don't have to talk about marriage at all. Dirigo Blue got a comment from the Maine Department of Education Comunications Director David Connerty-Marin:

I cannot comment on Massachusetts education law or decisions made by local school districts in Massachusetts. Here in Maine, our Learning Results standards and education regulations make no reference to the teaching of marriage in any way. So a change in Maine's laws or definition of marriage places no requirements on local districts regarding whether or how they teach about marriage. Such curriculum decisions are strictly local. Before or after passage of the gay marriage law a district could choose to teach about marriage or not, and to teach about it in any way it deemed appropriate. It simply is not governed by state education law.

But Schubert/Flint seems to be phoning it in a bit. They don't seem to realize what a far right wacko they picked to be in their ad.

Charla Bansley is a high school teacher at a private Christian school, not an elementary public school teacher as they are implying in the ad. And the leader of the Maine Chapter of Concerned Women of America, which is a hard-right nut-job org (anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion in schools, anti-porn, and anti-UN, yes they hate the United Nations). And she is a teabagger. And tried to get a student expelled for writing a pro-marriage equality letter to the editor as part of a class project.

And she thinks gays are psychotic and deviants. From a speech she gave at a Stand for Marriage Maine rally recently. Louise has much more over at the Blend.

Public display of psychosis and we have dealt with it by redefining decency down so as to explain away and make normal what a more civilized, and ordered, and healthy society would label deviant and the result has been a stunning failure.

This woman is a walking opportunity for opposition research and should be fodder for a while. Her values are not Maine values.

Fight back against this nasty. Fight back against fundie lies. Fight for love and marriage.

Give till it hurts, because if they win, there will be pain for Maine LGBT families.

P.S. The Courage Campaign is deploying me out to Maine next week. So expect a few posts from on the ground.

Dkos released yesterday the first public polling numbers on Ballot Question 1 in Maine, which asks voters if they want to repeal the marriage equality law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.

We are up by the narrowest of margins: 46 YES, 48 NO. That is essentially were we were at this point in the Prop 8 campaign, prior to the Yes side's devastating ad campaign.

The other side is excited about these results. From a Yes on 1 press release:

We are encouraged by the results of a poll released today by Daily Kos which shows that Mainers support protecting marriage between a man and a woman over legalizing homosexual marriage by a 48-to-46 margin.

Our lead is particularly significant given that the poll was conducted after our opponents had the television airwaves to themselves for two-and-a-half weeks and our ad had aired for just two days. It is clear that their message of fairness and equality do not compel voters to support homosexual marriage, particularly against the backdrop of the serious, real consequences to individuals, small businesses and religious organizations that we raise.

They are right. We are yet to see the effects of their messaging on the polling and that makes me really freaking nervous. We have never won a marriage fight at the ballot box. Losing in Maine would really set back the marriage equality movement, particularly after all of the momentum post-Prop 8.

But we all have the power influence the outcome of the race.

Maine is small. (For us out in California, it is really freaking small.) They are only expecting about 500k voters and have a budget of $3 million. They are as they like to say, "a cheap date".

That means we, the netroots can have a huge impact on this race.

I'm proud to announce that Blue America's 2010 ActBlue page is now live and No on 1 Maine is the first campaign to be list. They need your help to make sure unlike the Prop 8 campaign can stay up strongly on the air and continue to build their robust field program.

Give whatever you can. Early money is much more useful than late money, especially when so much of the vote will come in through the mail.

If you have some airline miles to spare, you can donate them here to fund volunteers traveling to Maine for a week, as part of their volunteer vacation program.

I'm headed to Maine myself in a week, on loan from the Courage Campaign. I can't wait to work beside the wonderful volunteers featured in this video:

crossposted from Driftglass at the request of Crooks and Liars editors

Once upon a time, there was a President named Bill Clinton, who was, by most historical standards, a typical Centrist Republican, although by a fluke of geography and circumstances he ran for public office with a "(D)" after his name.

Under his Administration, many Conservative ideas which had long gathered dust on the shelf -- ideas such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict “Pay as You Go” fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, budget surpluses, NAFTA, GATT, official bans on gay marriage, etc. -- were finally realized.

And for all of his good work on behalf of their ideology, Conservatives spent eight, long years treating Bill Clinton -- a Southern, White, Christian man -- as if he were a case of flesh eating nuclear syphilis.

Because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name.

And because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name, according to the leading voices in the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement, Bill Clinton was, in no particular order, Hitler, a Socialist, a rapist, a warmonger, a serial murderer, and a drug dealer, whose Presidency was somehow vaguely illegitimate.

And counterpointing the 24/7 slime campaign, there were those endless, endless hearings. Whitewater. Travel office. Christmas Card lists. Lincoln bedroom. Etc ad nauseum.

Or don’t you remember?

Continue reading »

From San Diego CityBeat:

In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions. CityBeat contacted attorneys for both parties, but neither returned calls by press time.

This ardent defender of traditional marriage didn't just try to cover his buns in the divorce, he downright abused his wife of 43+ years:

In March, Doug told Elizabeth he’d no longer maintain the bank account the two shared to pay her expenses, and that she should submit her bills to his office. She followed this procedure, but was surprised to get a call from AT&T saying her bill was past due.

“Doug began dragging his feet on paying my expenses,” she writes, “refusing to pay certain expenses until I accepted his demands regarding our property division. I believe Doug did this to squeeze me financially.” Read on...

Now THAT, my friends, is what real, heterosexual, traditional marriage is all about! Snark/ You gotta love those GOP family values...

Now let's start working on getting him to support gay marriage. Still, I'm certainly happy to see someone standing up for women's rights, and I'm a big believer in rewarding good behavior. If you like Democrats who stand up for our values, you can show Creigh Deeds some love here.

Surrounded by female activists and lawmakers, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate R. Creigh Deeds on Monday launched an assault on his opponent's record of working to restrict abortions, calling it evidence that the Republican has the wrong priorities for the state.

The Women for Deeds event, at the Northern Virginia Community College campus in Annandale, was the first of three this week at which Deeds will highlight Republican Robert F. McDonnell's history on the issue. McDonnell introduced numerous bills on abortion during his 14 years as a delegate from Virginia Beach.

Deeds's message could energize a Democratic base that has been showing signs of sluggishness since last year's overwhelming victory in the presidential election. It could also chip away at McDonnell's campaign promises that he would focus on education, jobs and transportation if elected governor.

"It's easy in an election year to talk a good game about the governor you're going to be, and it's easy to talk about jobs and bipartisanship, but I think it's my obligation to draw distinctions where they exist," Deeds said.

[...]"Despite Creigh Deeds's ongoing attempts to divide Virginians, Bob McDonnell will continue to talk about bringing Virginians together to create jobs and opportunity," McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said.

Deeds said he had spent his 18 years as a state delegate and senator from rural Bath County working to improve education and promote economic development while McDonnell, who opposes abortion in all instances except when the life of the mother is in danger, had spent his time in public life "single-mindedly advancing his anti-choice agenda."

This is inspiring. Hopefully, we can look forward to the day when civil rights aren't a matter of geography and campaign strategies:

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first state to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.

"In enacting DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."

[...] The lawsuit argues that DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1079)

PLAYS: (2773)

Apparently, Rip-Van-Winkle-like, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove simply slept through the 1990s, when Republicans couldn't stop obsessing about the Mighty Clenis and its powers of seduction.

Yesterday on The O'Reilly Factor, they both were mewling piteously about the mean liberals who are having a bit of a heyday with Mark Sanford's Appalachian Trail Adventures:

O'Reilly: Some in the Muslim world believe in stoning people. Apparently, some in the USA believe in stoning as well -- stoning with words.

Because, of course, Bill O'Reilly never attacks people with his words. You Pinhead!

What really got Rove's goat was Paul Begala, having the audacity to point out that he, like a lot of us, have had enough of the GOP's Holier-Than-Thou schtick, which they use with great regularity to beat liberals about the head and neck for their supposed "licentiousness".

Rove: I guess what it comes down to is when you get to socially liberal ideas like abortion, and like gay marriage, the left will seize on any opportunity that they think they have in order to condemn those who are pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. And it's just -- you know, there are people who are maybe moderate in their views on economics, or maybe nationalist on their views on international affairs, but when it comes down to social questions, they're liberal, and it's an instinct, and they cause a lot of people -- you know, like Paul Begala.

O'Reilly: I was just going to say that. Is that unbelievable?

Rove: Unbelievable. I don't recall -- you know, who exactly is accusing him of being a poor father or a poor Christian or not a patriot. But this sort of artificial victimhood -- and again, the purpose of it is, is to say to people --

O'Reilly: But wasn't Begala the guy, that it was just about sex, he and Carville were running around -- that's all they said for two years!

Don't you just love it when the guy who perfected right-wing victimhood as a phony schtick indulges it right there onscreen -- and then accuses the left of it!

And O'Reilly misses his own point: Begala was obviously complaining about Republicans' propensity to condemn all liberals as "immoral" based on a single person's failings (see, e.g., the right-wing claim after Sanford that "liberals are more to licentiousness"). Which is now the position he and Rove are trying to claim -- while accusing Begala of the opposite.

But the real capper was this:

Rove: What we saw last night was the coarseness and ugliness in American politics, carried forward by people who claim not to be political actors, but commentators and observers. And they gave the lie to their so-called neutrality or objectiveness last night.

Quoth the cohort of Lee Atwater and the man who "makes [Charles] Colson look like a novice".

The right's projection strategy is reaching absurd heights these days. But it at least makes for some amusing TV.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (772)

PLAYS: (1582)

Isn't it always the same with these homophobes? They say that their words are taken out of context when they are criticized for their remarks.

WjacTV has the news:

Abby: Marty, Sen. Eichelberger tells me his radio debate over same sex marriage was taken out of context and he adds that the group that's demanding an apology is making it difficult for people on both sides of the issue to have a proper discussion.

Host: But are you saying Sen. Eichelberger that by their very nature, homosexual relationships are dysfunctional?

Eichelberger Um, yes, I guess I would say that.

Nice try with the out-of-context canard. PA's (R) John Eichelberger really has people mad over his radio debate and rightly so. (h/t Ben)

Sen.John Eichelberger, R-Pa., is making headlines after a gay rights advocacy group claims he made some controversial comments.The Keystone Progress claims Eichelberger called same-sex couples "dysfunctional" and "we're allowing them to exist."Eichelberger debated Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Pa., on WHYY radio Friday.Both senators have dueling bills on same-sex marriage in the State Legislature.Leach wants to amend the Pennsylvania ban on same sex marriage to give same sex couples full and equal rights.

Eichelberger says his bill will define marriage between a man and a woman."There's no reason to encourage that kind of behavior in Pennsylvania," Eichelberger said. "That's my whole point. We don't have any reason to change the way we do business here. There is no evidence that this will be good for our society."...read on

He plays the "destruction of society" card. They never tell you how gay marriage will destroy society though, do they?

2 political junkies writes:

Eichelberger said in this interview, ''[This is] not an anti-homosexual bill.''

If despite that, you're still somehow convinced that Mr. Integrity First is "anti-homosexual," you'll be happy to know that he believes in allowing teh gays to exist!

You can sign a petition at Keystone Progress here.

From The Colbert Report:

All marriages shouldn't be equal, but there should be so many separate kinds that the gays don't feel singled out.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (88)

PLAYS: (299)

Glenn Beck's irony alert button is broken. Answer to Glenn Beck's question. The day Fox News put you on the air possibly? And Bill-O wants to talk about other people's anger management problems. That's rich.

The Mormons used a lot of their cash to influence Prop 8 in California so the east is ready.

With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.

"The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!" warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy "borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion."

"I'm not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people," said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. "My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims."

If a religion is pumping millions of dollars to defeat a human rights issue why can't people advertise against them? Isn't their actions extremely more offensive then an ad that says: The Mormons are coming?