Dems caught staffing group posing as GOP-friendly gay marriage organization

The national gay marriage lobby group behind Standing Up for New Hampshire Families has privately used New Hampshire Democrats to volunteer and staff their activities despite posing for months as a Republican-friendly organization.

Standing Up for New Hampshire Families, which NH Journal has identified as an organization actually run out of New York and Washington, DC, has spent a tremendous amount of national money running ads designed to brand it as a Republican-leaning, pro-gay marriage organization. They have even appropriated the iconic red, white and blue Republican elephant in their advertising.

But recent e-mails obtained by NH Journal demonstrate that the manpower used to back their lobbying and allegedly grassroots efforts come exclusively from city and county Democrat organizations.

“You have to participate in either one of these phone banks tonight or Saturday,” directed James Hattan, co-chair of the Concord City Democrats to in an e-mail obtained by NH Journal. The phone banks are designed to trick Republican legislators that gay marriage has mainstream Republican support.

Similar e-mails were sent to other Democrat organizations urging them to pressure Republican lawmakers.

According to the e-mails, the ringleader of the phone bank and lobbying activity is Trevor Chandler. Chandler is a Democratic political operative who once worked for Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), whose Senate candidacy was rejected by Granite State voters in 2010.

Author: Staff Reporter

Share This Post On
468 ad
  • Greg B.

    Ms. Chasse: As your colleague Shawn Millerick in the November article to which you link, you are again attempting to discredit those advocating for equality in New Hampshire by pointing out that some of them are from New York and D.C. But, just as Millerick did, you’re silent about the other side’s roots. The group called “New Hampshire for Marriage” ( claims to be a “coalition of Granite State citizens”. Wrong! It’s actually just a website run by the National Organization for Marriage – an anti-gay lobbying “non-profit” based in New Jersey and mostly run out of D.C. In fact, if you scroll to the bottom of their website’s homepage, you’ll find a Washington D.C. address. So much for “Granite State citizens” huh? They bring in millions of out of state (and out of country – Rome to be precise) dollars into New Hampshire to influence elections and legislation while simultaneously accusing their opponents of the same. Another similarly named group, NH, is run by Ted Maravelias who has ties to Mass Resistance, a Massachusetts group designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So why aren’t you writing about these aspects of the marriage debate?NH Journal claims to have a “bipartisan editorial board”. The one-sided coverage of this issue begs to differ.

  • warhorse_03826

    greg b.

    using the SPLC to designate who is a hate group and who isn’t shows poor judgement.

    they designated “casa d’ice signs” as a “hate group”.

    it’s a BAR.

     SPLC designates everyone who isn’t a progressive group as a “hate group”. and they don’t do any fact checking and collect all their intel from the internet. there are 15 groups listed by the SPLC as hate groups (I’m not going to tell you which ones) that I started LAST YEAR as a test of their systems. I created 15 yahoo groups, each with a new e-mail address. each e-mail address was used to join all of the other groups, giving then 15 “members”. I then filled the calendar with bogus training events, seminars, ect. so that it would be listed as “active”.

    SPLC is in the business of scaring the crap out of people for MONEY. ask morris dees about that vacation home he has in the bahamas…to go along with all those off-shore bank accounts.

    • Greg B.

      “SPLC designates everyone who isn’t a progressive group as a “hate group”

      Why would you even waste the few seconds it took to type that? It’s such
      an obviously untrue and absurd statement. If it was an accurate characterization of SPLC, every group that attended CPAC would be a designated hate group. The RNC would be on the list. They’re not. And as for the Yahoo Groups claim… another lie. Maybe you’re the one who needs to do some fact checking before you post foolish comments. Here, I’ll help you get started:

      • warhorse_03826

         all 15 groups I created are listed on the SPLC site as “active hate groups”. all 15 groups have no real people in them. the meetings listed on the sites are fictitious. SPLC would know that if they bothered to send someone out to count cars or even attend the meetings. but they don’t. they have no profit motive in the truth. only in what they can use to scare people into more donations to line their own pockets.

        I note you aren’t refuting the facts that the SPLC has a massive profit motive in designating people as “hate groups”, and the director has multiple vacation homes and offshore bank accounts. so much for helping out “poverty”. apparently he’ll get around to that, right after he retires, right?

        • Greg B.

          The entire anti-gay (I’m sure you prefer the euphemism “pro-family”) industry is motivated solely by a massive profit margin. Scaring stupid people into opening their check books by convincing them the big bad gays are out to destroy their families while simultaneously doing the dirty work of the Vatican and LDS has made many shameless bigots pretty wealthy. And now they’re crying victim because SPLC is putting a spotlight on the hate industry? Also, SPLC provides names and history for any group it puts on its list. I’d think that if you actually tricked them into naming a non-existent group, you’d be eager to discredit them by publicizing the proof. Until you do, I’ll consider your claims to be false.

          • warhorse_03826

             I’m solely against anyone taking the SPLC seriously. they list many groups as “hate groups” that simply have a legitimate beef with what’s going on, and skip any groups that do EXACTLY the same thing but are progressive.

            remember all the groups that were calling president bush hitler, and hanging or burning him in effigy, or calling for him to be killed in office?

            what about all the violent anti-semitism and “kill the rich” at OWS? are they, or any of the component groups that made up OWS, listed as a “hate groups”? obviously calling for someone to be killed is “hate speech”…so why aren’t they listed?

            are you blind to the hate going on on your side of the issue, are you willfully ignoring it, or are you PART of it?

          • Greg B.

            Nonsense, Warhorse. Thousands of people – of all faiths – took part in the Occupy movement across the country. You think that because a handful of wackos strolled into the crowd with some anti-Jewish signs, the entire movement is anti-Semitic? Do you apply the same standard to the Tea Party ?

          • warhorse_03826

             yet this is the standards you are holding other people to. I am simply using yours, and the SPLC standards of “hate groups” against groups of the other side..which the SPLC SHOULD be doing to be fair about things.. nonsense? you are correct sir. you stepped in a big pile of it. let’s hope some of it sticks. wisdom is like that.

          • Bosguy29

            I think we can both take away a couple of things from this exchange:
            1. I’ve proven your claim that SPLC designates “everyone” who isn’t progressive as a hate group is completely false.

            2. You consider anyone who is “not a progressive” to be indistinguishable from sick and twisted groups like Mass Resistance. If I were a mainstream conservative, I’d take offense to that.

          • warhorse_03826

             can’t tell if trolling, stupid, or brainwashed.

            belief does not equal proof. you BELIEVE that the threat comes from the right, thus the only coverage that the SPLC should have is of the right.

            I want the SPLC to treat the threats coming from the left as equal from the threats coming from the right. but they don’t.

            for some reason “less government, lower taxes, more accountability and transparency” of the tea party is “racist!!! hate speech!!!” yet “kill the rich! class warfare! revolution now!” is “ho hum. is there anything else on? where’s the TV remote?”

            you are blinded to the violence of your own side. you never in any posts here admit that it exists. so, you are either trying to cover for it, or you think it’s a good thing and not “hate”.

          • Greg B.

            1. I provided proof, not a statement of believe.  I gave examples (and could provide many more) of groups that are non-progressive AND not SPLC-designated hate groups. That’s plain and simple.
            2. Re-read my post. I didn’t call the Tea Party racist. I don’t think wanting less government is racist, I think holding a sign calling the POTUS the “N” word is. If you follow the link I provided, you’ll see that it was an example of the latter. And you clearly missed my point. The SPLC doesn’t list the Tea Party as a hate group because a handful of extremists attaching themselves to the movement. If they did, then yes, they’d be inconsistent if they didn’t do the same for the Occupy movement – which had thousands of people and one or two anti-Semites. I’m not sure what your point was but you seem to think that you had one… somewhere.

          • warhorse_03826

             oh yeah..and a few wackos walked into the tea party..AND WE THREW THEM OUT. most of them were agents from the other side trying to discredit the tea party, because the “tea party is racist” meme wasn’t sticking.

            OWS accepted their racists with open arms.

            double standards aren’t going to fly anymore. you want the racists out? THROW THEM OUT OF YOUR SIDE TOO. we’ve already done so.

  • Pingback: The PJ Tatler » There is No ‘What If.’ The Left Is a Potemkin Village

  • C. dog e. doG

    Here’s an easy way to put a stop to the tiff between the kids fighting over which naughty bits are allowed to go bump in the night with official government sanctioning: remove State tentacles from the marriage business.  There are no instructions in the Grate State of NH’s rule book for Nanny to meddle in the affairs of the heart, and the magical strings attached to this invisible social contract.  Let the churches divine such things, and leave the State to do what it does best: absolutely nothin’.
    – C. dog, the lone-wolf voice of reason

    • Greg B.

      I’ve yet to see one person who puts forth this “get government out of marriage” argument demonstrate that they have put their money and privileges where their mouth is by forgoing a marriage license, filing taxes as single, or refusing the thousand-plus rights, benefits and privileges that come with governmental recognition of marriage.

      • C. dog e. doG

        Evidently you live on some other planet ‘cuz I knows plenty o’ folk who shack up with not rings or strings attached.  Guess you don’t get ’round much.
        – C. dog the Cur

        • Greg B.

          You clearly missed my point….

  • Guest

    This article neglects to mention that Standing Up for New Hampshire Families has support from several prominent Republicans. (And no, I am not a staffer).  So, the group is GOP-friendly in that sense and thus, the NH Journal is guilty of deceiving the public (by withholding this information) in much the same way it is claiming this group is deceiving the public.  Both sides play the game.

  • Greg B.

    How about an exposé on NOM’s (aka New Hampshire for Marriage) dirty race-baiting tactics. It came to light from documents made public by their campaign disclosure legal battle in Maine. This is a local and relevant story. Will the bipartisan editorial board of NH Journal address it or ignore it?