President Obama’s campaign in Minnesota has issued a statement opposing the state’s proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

“While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the Obama for America – Minnesota campaign. “That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

The Obama campaign offered the same statement in opposition to North Carolina’s Amendment One, and the Catholic bishops responded that his position was “a grave disappointment.” Though the President’s position on same-sex marriage is still “evolving,” he opposes state-level attempts to discriminate against same-sex couples.

The National Organization for Marriage has raised more than $284,000 to promote Minnesota’s marriage inequality amendment, but listed zero donors as the source of the cash. The organization explained that the contributions came from “membership dues,” which allows it to avoid disclosing donors under a loophole in Minnesota law. The only problem is that NOM does not have a membership structure nor has it ever collected dues in any form — at least not publicly. NOM’s website offers only one method for contributing to its efforts, and that is to donate:

In fact, in its 2010 tax returns, NOM did not claim any revenue from “Membership Dues”:

It seems that NOM is attempting to justify that it hasn’t specifically asked for money in Minnesota, even though it regularly highlights its own work there. Then, it is spinning the idea that its regular donations come from “members” who are paying “dues,” even though its structure is devoid of such language. This is bogus manipulation that is clearly designed to circumvent the state’s disclosure laws, as the organization has tried to do in countless other states. Though NOM continues to lose these fights in states like Maine, California, and Washington, the tactic allows its supporters to stay hidden for years after the campaigns for which they should have been disclosed.

NOM’s partners in the “Minnesota for Marriage” anti-gay coalition seem to be in on the scheme. The Minnesota Family Council gave $346,994.05 to the coalition in 2011 — more than twice its revenue in 2010 — without disclosing any sources for the extra cashflow. The Minnesota Catholic Conference similarly contributed $350,000 from “business interest accounts,” which also have no donors. It is telling that Minnesota for Marriage’s filing was only eight pages long while Minnesotans United for All Families — the organization fighting the anti-gay amendment — offered a 348-page report highlighting its donors.

The Human Rights Campaign has called on the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board to investigate NOM’s financial activity. HRC President Joe Solmonese outright suggested that “NOM and others may be secretly telling people to contribute to them instead of directly to the campaign so that they can avoid public disclosure.” Given how consolidated NOM’s financiers seem to be, Solmonese’s implication makes a lot of sense.

An example of ex-gay literature promoted on PAL's website.

A small group of parents in Minnesota’s bullying-riddled Anoka-Hennepin School District not only want to prevent the school from offering any support for LGBT students, but have resolved to reverse decades of history and promote an explicitly anti-gay agenda. Andy Birkey, writing for The Colu.mn, has reprinted the full resolution put forth by the Parents Action League (PAL), the group most vocally opposed to changing the district’s “neutrality” policy that prevents teachers from talking about LGBT issues. Here are some excerpts of its offensive claims and recommendations:

And whereas school officials would be liable for violating parental rights by subjecting a child to homosexual and related conduct indoctrination…

And whereas legal liability exists for the tort of negligence if it is proved that homosexual activists and organizations were granted access to students under responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm…

1. A new division within the student support services and a special section on the District 11 website devoted to student of faith, moral conviction, ex-homosexuals and ex-transgenders…

3. That District 11 administrators and staff work closely with pro-family and ex-homosexual and ex-transgender organizations to provide ongoing training to school counselors, school nurses, social workers, school psychologists, prevention specialists, student learning advocates and a number of secondary principals and principals….

4. Provide professional development opportunities in which philosophical, pedogogical, and political assumptions of GLBT advocacy are critically examined.

7. Provide the history of gay-related immune deficiencies and acquired immune deficiencies and the medical consequences of homosexual acts.

The candor of PAL’s resolution reveals that the group is actually advocating harm against LGBT people. These statements are full of misinformation and smears against gay people and the importance of helping young people understand the nature of sexual orientation. PAL believes that gay people are dangerous and intend to indoctrinate, that students should be exposed to harmful ex-gay therapy, and AIDS is still a gay disease. Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) is a name that hasn’t been used to describe HIV/AIDS in over 25 years, and PAL’s use of it is particularly offensive, aside from being obviously inaccurate as well.

It’s important to remember that the president of PAL is Barb Anderson, who is a researcher and spokesperson for the Minnesota Family Council, one of the primary proponents of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. The vile language in this resolution is just the latest evidence that those opposed to LGBT equality have malicious intent and wish to further stigmatize young people who have been bullied.

Minnesotans United for All Families — a coalition opposing the state’s proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman — has discovered that proponents of inequality are having a hard time finding Minnesotans who oppose same-sex marriage. Yesterday, the anti-gay group released its first video of 2012, but rather than interviewing actual residents of the state, the commercial is “full of stock images“:

We tracked down the phony stock images of families that they used in their video, and we think you deserve to see the proof. Check them out:

1. Children Having Fun in Playground Together
2. Loving and Playful Family
3. Happy Bride and Groom Smiling Together
4. Happy, Smiling Family
5. A house, also found on a securities website
6. And last but not least, this couple, who are also prominently featured on a website for a hospital in India!

Watch the video:

Relying on stock images is a fairly common practice in political campaigns, but anti-gay groups who argue that the public supports their view of “traditional marriage” seem particularly drawn to fake representations of families.