Our guest blogger is Jeff Krehely, Director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at American Progress.

Today the Obama Administration announced a new partnership with the Heartland Alliance that will create the first-ever resource center that will help resettle LGBT refugees. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, a division of the Administration for Children and Families, awarded $250,000 to Heartland to create a training center that will support LGBT-specific work, including cultural competency training for resettlement network staff, in key resettlement locations in the United States.

ACF Acting Assistant Secretary David A. Hansell stated, “The Obama administration has issued a clear mandate that comprehensive human rights include the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Addressing the protection and resettlement challenges faced by LGBT refugees is a priority for ACF and ORR.”

In announcing the new resource center, ORR Director Eskinder Negash noted that the U.S. resettlement network currently has limited understanding of LGBT refugees, and that little information exists on the population. Heartland will work to fill this void, and increase the network’s capacity to humanely and effectively serve LGBT refugees.

In advance of a 2012 vote on anti-gay marriage amendment to the state’s constitution, the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board will be examining its 1997 advisory opinion on nondisclosure with regards to corporations’ political spending on ballot initiatives. If the board revokes its previous opinion, corporations who donate funds either in support or against the constitutional amendment may be forced to reveal their spending records.

The Board held a preliminary hearing into the opinion yesterday in order to determine if it complies with the statutory regulations regarding campaign finance; after hearing arguments in favor of preserving the current nondisclosure position from various anti-gay marriage advocates, the board delayed making a final decision until its June 30 meeting.

Although the Board heard no testimony from critics of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it has expressed doubts about the nondisclosure advisory opinion several times in the past when Minnesotans have voted on ballot initiatives. According to a report released by the Board on June 10, “an advisory opinion issued without a well-reasoned basis for its conclusions should not be allowed to stand merely because it has been in existence for a long period of time.”

But those in favor of upholding the nondisclosure precedent have substantial experience with these kinds of legal arguments. The coalition group “Minnesotans for Marriage,” who presented arguments at yesterday’s hearing, also includes the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit that is famous for supporting anti-gay-marriage laws and constitutional amendments around the nation. NOM proved to be instrumental in the 2009 campaign to overturn Maine’s same-sex marriage law by bringing in almost two thirds of the campaign funds and is now involved in a lawsuit in order to protect the name of its donors against the state’s disclosure laws.

The attorney representing NOM in that case, Josiah Neeley, served as the legal representative for “Minnesotans for Marriage” in the June 12 hearing before the Campaign Finance Board. An associate at the same firm that represented the defense in the 2010 Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case on campaign finance contributions, Neeley argued that corporations are “legal persons” and should not have to disclose their political contributions when it comes to ballot initiatives. “The text of a ballot initiative speaks for itself,” he said, and thus such a nondisclosure practice does not present the same danger of unduly influencing voters.

But Common Cause Minnesota executive director Mike Dean denied that corporate spending on ballot initiatives avoids corruption.

“I really think the public has a right to know about who’s funding this political speech,” Dean said. “One of the ways that we can prevent that corruption … is to bring campaign contributions into the sunlight.”

Full disclosure could also provide additional information that voters would need to make a decision on an initiative, particularly given that some predict this will be one of the most highly-funded ballot initiatives yet for Minnesota.

“Without the knowledge about who is making political speech, the public can’t evaluate the information or misinformation,” Dean said.

If the Campaign Finance Board does decide to revoke its previous opinion on the state’s disclosure laws at its June 20 meeting, Neeley stated that there is “a serious possibility of litigation” on the issue, although he did not comment as to whether or not “Minnesotans for Marriage” would be involved.

–Sarah Bufkin

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), one of the top opponents of marriage equality, apparently aspires more to be like their oppositions, equality groups like Freedom To Marry. Louis Marinelli, who defected from NOM a few months ago, revealed today details about a secret NOM memo regarding their aspirations for visibility in social media:

MARINELLI: In a confidential new media plan, NOM dedicated an entire page to demonstrating how the Freedom to Marry website was a good example for NOM to follow moving forward to create a website that had a fresh, grassroots approach and had the style of a political campaign much in the way Freedom to Marry has.

On the following page, NOM expanded its demonstration to show commonalities between the Freedom to Marry website and that of other organizations and political campaigns it aspires to mimic in their overall effort to grow their grassroots support. Remember their grassroots support is essentially non-existent which is what prompted them to create their online propaganda teams to create the illusion of support that doesn’t exist.

Marinelli goes on to explain that NOM is frustrated about how high they appear in search results for “marriage” and “same-sex marriage.” NOM also wishes their supporters were as active as those who support marriage equality.

As Marinelli continues to reveal the inner workings of NOM, it’s becoming clearer that NOM is not nearly as confident as they present themselves in public. Unfortunately, among the things NOM admires about groups like Freedom To Marry, supporting equality for all couples is not one of them.

The Buffalo News reports that Sen. Mark J. Grisanti (R) may provide the 32 and critical vote to ultimately pass same-sex marriage in New York. Grisanti, who is said to be struggling with the decision, is now “under mounting pressure from religious groups, which are reminding him of the promises he made last year to oppose gay marriage in his election campaign:

“I think there are a number of persons who support him and continue to support him based upon what we felt he believes,” said the Rev. William Gillison, pastor of Mount Olive Baptist Church in Buffalo.

“It was not just the white community that helped to elect him. There were also blacks and Hispanics who helped put him there, and the issue we’re discussing was one of the deciding factors,” Gillison said. “It’s something that he opposed last year. I don’t know what’s happened over the last few days.”

But the bill New York Governor Cuomo sent up to the Senate yesterday would only legalize civil same-sex marriages; it exempts religious organizations from being required to recognize the relationships. “Assemblyman Daniel D. O’Donnell, D-Manhattan, prime sponsor in the Assembly, said more than 100 religious and fraternal groups already are exempt from various rules under the state’s human rights laws and would not be affected by a gay marriage law.”

But O’Donnell “rejected critics who want to also exempt individuals and private groups that want to deny” recognition to gay couples arguing that “such a provision could be applied to blacks, Jews or other minorities and that there is a long history in which ‘public accommodations have been used as the vehicle of discrimination against groups different from the owners of the accommodation.’”

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-IL) said he expects a vote by Friday. “My position is it’s a vote of conscience, and it should come to the floor, subject to a vote of the conference,” he said. “My guess is that’s going to be a Friday issue.”