'Maggie Gallagher avoids interview on NOM scandal?' and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Photo: This is how Maggie Gallagher responded to NOM scandal today on MSNBC - Uh oh. I think it's safe to say NOM has realized that it has a BIG problem. Maggie Gallagher did not show up for a booked appearance on MSNBC to discuss the organization's race-baiting scandal. Jeremy says that there is a video forthcoming.

Money Bomb Day 3: Peter LaBarbera pollutes Raleigh to attack ‘dangerous and hateful Sex Radical Dan Savage’ - Batten down the hatches. Porno Pete is coming to North Carolina.

Ellison Denounces National Organization for Marriage - And we have our first - but hopefully not last - member of Congress to denounce NOM's ugly tactics.

Michigan Civil Service Commission Upholds Firing Of Assistant AG Over Anti-Gay Bullying - Glad to hear about the fact that there is some justice in this world.

GOP Leaders Make Mockery Of ‘Religious Freedom’ By Appointing Commissioners Who Advocate Fear Of Others - Well this was smart of Boehner. Appointing Robert George, one of NOM's founders, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Just tell me that Boehner has no power to make other appointments.

And finally from Tea Party Jesus comes NOM Jesus:




I didn't create this but I am proud that it links back to my blog. For those offended, there is no need. This is how some pervert Christianity in this country - brazen lies and deceptive tactics backed by an obscenely large amount of money and an evangelical zeal that somehow God overlooks the sins you commit if you commit them in His name.

Those who are true followers of Christ need not be angry at Tea Party Jesus or me. You need to speak up against those pushing this image. And you know who they are.

How NOM links gays to pedophilia while keeping its hands clean

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

" . . . although NOM says it has no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than straight men, it frequently links to websites of others who claim to. We also point out that NOM, despite its claims, keeps bringing up the subject of children and sex." - Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center

One of the revelations coming out about the scandal involving National Organization for Marriage and the release of their confidential files is how the group sought to confuse the issue of marriage equality by bringing up issues of "children's innocence," as if to imply that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will damage children.

In a story which was supposed to come out in May but got moved up, the Southern Poverty Law Center breaks down just how NOM does this.

The piece, NOM Lets Others Do Their Dirty Work,  is probably one of the best take downs of NOM's deceptions that I have ever read :

NOM leaders express pride in sleazy divide and conquer strategy

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

Faced with concrete proof of its plan to hinder marriage equality by driving a wedge between the black and gay communities, the National Organization for Marriage owned up to the plan.

With a deceptive caveat.

NOM President Brian Brown said the following on the organization's blog:

“The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was formed in 2007 and has worked extensively with supporters of traditional marriage from every color, creed and background. We have worked with prominent African-American and Hispanic leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, Bishop George McKinney of the COGIC Church, Bishop Harry Jackson and the New York State Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz Sr., all of whom share our concern about protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Gay marriage advocates have attempted to portray same-sex marriage as a civil right, but the voices of these and many other leaders have provided powerful witness that this claim is patently false. Gay marriage is not a civil right, and we will continue to point this out in written materials such as those released in Maine. We proudly bring together people of different races, creeds and colors to fight for our most fundamental institution: marriage.”

Brown obviously wrote that tepid response in sad attempt to quell the firestorm. 

But not Maggie Gallagher. She said the following:

At least Brown tried to finagle in his lie. Gallagher's explanation to me amounts to a huge middle finger in the face of the gay community. Gallagher seems to be saying "Yeah we are doing it but so what. What can you do about it?"

Remember the words in the  document uncovered last night:

 The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.

NOM didn't work with black leaders nor did the organization reach out to black leaders. NOM used black leaders as shields in order to drive a wedge between the black and gay community. NOM wanted to provoke the gay community in order to start a nasty argument between the two communities (gay and African-American) on what constitutes a civil right. NOM clearly said that it wanted to provoke the gay community to verbally attack black leaders as "bigots."

And it's only because the document didn't state that NOM was hoping for something a bit more physical that I'm pressed to believe that verbal attacks by the gay community on black leaders is the only thing the organization wanted.

But I can't help wondering if there would be a NOM rapid response crew conveniently available if the disagreement between the black and gay community had turned into something more than simply verbal.

This was just plain sleaze. There is no other word for what NOM did. And all in the name of God and saving marriage.

But someone should tell me something - if NOM has to stoop to such sleazy tactics to "save" marriage from gays, then who is going to save marriage from NOM?

Hat tip to Joe.My.God for the graphic of Gallagher's response.

'More nauseating revelations come from NOM files' and other Tuesday midday news briefs

As more revelations regarding the disgusting tactics used by the National Organization for Marriage to impede marriage equality come out, let us do all we can to make sure people know about these things. Enough with the predictions of "this will be the end of NOM." Let's do what we can to make those predictions a reality:

Did NOM Hire Someone to Unsuccessfully Find ‘Victims’ of Gay Parents? - From Right Wing Watch comes another revealed endeavor of NOM.

Jeremy Hooper from Good As You has been running revelations all morning. Put on your wading boots and carry a good can of air freshner cause what NOM has been attempting is thick and it stinks:

NOM Strategy, Exposed: Please, lets get some thinkers up in here!

NOM Strategy, Exposed: Actively seeking 'elites'

NOM Strategy, Exposed: Maggie's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance

NOM Strategy, Exposed: Highly partisan org. 'sideswipes' first, asks questions later

Top 10 Highlights From NOM’s Race-Wedging, Donor-Hiding, Victim-Playing Confidential Strategies - And just in case you need another break down of NOM's strategy, Think Progress is here for you.

And in other news:

House Speaker John Boehner Won't Drop Defense Of Marriage Support - Go ahead Boehner. Waste that money.

“Bully” movie will be “unrated” after 475,000 petition MPAA to overturn “R” rating - A victory for a film which needs to be seen.

Anti-Gay Commentators Distort GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project - Surprising no one of course.

NOM's deliberate manipulation of black, gay communities is nauseating

Brian Brown of NOM

The blockbuster news which came out last night that the National Organization for Marriage was deliberately driving a wedge between the black and gay communities to stop marriage equality continues to disturb the hell out of me.

So many things bother me about it. It's not only the fact that NOM specifically said it wanted drive a wedge between the black and communities. It's also the fact that NOM was recruiting African-American leaders to speak out against marriage equality for the purpose of getting the gay community provoked.

So in essence, NOM didn't want these black leaders for their skill or intelligence. NOM was and is using black leaders as sacrifices or tokens in its war against marriage equality.

It makes one realize why NOM didn't comment on Patrick Wooden's rambling lies on gay men, anal sex, surgery, and cell phones. NOM was probably thrilled over Wooden's words. It wouldn't have mattered to the organization that Wooden was lying, that he was demeaning gays, that his comments were creating divisions which would make it so difficult for young lgbtqs of color to come out and build self esteem.

Wooden's comments is probably what NOM wanted because they drove a wedge.

Court documents prove NOM's plan to divide black, gay communities

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage's unsuccessful fight to skirt Maine's financial disclosure laws just backfired majorly on the group by revealing a  distasteful part of its game plan to stop marriage equality.

According to a court document that was uploaded online, NOM specifically worked to drive a wedge between the black and gay community on the subject of marriage equality:

According to page 11 of this document called Marriage: $20 Million Strategy for Victory:

3. Not a Civil Right Project 

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.

NOM has portrayed whatever African-American opposition to marriage equality its spotlighted as spontaneous attempts by leaders and members of the black community to keep its civil rights legacy from supposedly being "tainted" by a comparison to gay equality.

But now we see that there was nothing spontaneous about this. It was a cynically planned effort by NOM - which the organization continues to exploit - in order to drive a wedge between blacks and gays.

And notice how NOM says that one of the purposes of creating this division was to create a negative reaction from gay equality supporters against the African-Americans speaking out against marriage equality.

One doesn't have to spell out how this benefits NOM's efforts. The two sides attack each other with extreme anger causing magazine articles to be written about the division, news programs to focus on the division, and venomous chats to occur on places like Facebook and Twitter.

Some heterosexual African-Americans will let loose with homophobia against the gay community.  And some white lgbtqs will express racist comments about the black community. Both communities will be at each other's throats. There will be no intelligent conversations on the matter and neither community will benefit an iota.

And NOM will sit back and reap the benefits of causing this chaos.

It reminds me of an Aesop fable I once posted:

An Eagle had made her nest at the top of a lofty oak. A Fox, having found a convenient hole, lived with her young in the middle of the trunk; and a Wild Sow with her young had taken shelter in a hollow at its foot. The Fox resolved to destroy by her arts this chance-made colony. She climbed to the nest of the Eagle, and said: "Destruction is preparing for you, and for me too. The Wild Sow, whom you may see daily digging up the earth, wishes to uproot the oak, that she may, on its fall, seize our families as food." Then she crept down to the cave of the Sow and said: "Your children are in great danger; for as soon as you shall go out with your litter to find food, the Eagle is prepared to pounce upon one of your little pigs." When night came, she went forth with silent foot and obtained food for herself and her young; but, feigning to be afraid, she kept a look-out all through the day. Meanwhile, the Eagle, full of fear of the Sow, sat still on the branches, and the Sow, terrified by the Eagle, did not dare to go out from her cave; and thus they each, with their families, perished from hunger.

Moral - Gay folks and black folks can argue all day as to who gets to be the  "sow" and who gets to be the "eagle." But both groups better damn well recognize who the hell the fox is.

Editor's note - There are a lot of court documents and I'm sure that in the coming days, we will learn more about NOM's exploits. Stay tuned not only to this blog but several others.

Anti-gay pundit claims that he is the victim

Scott Lively

Of all of the 36 anti-gay pundits on GLAAD's Media Accountability Project, I would say that Scott Lively has done more than enough to make the list and then some.

The following are his stats:

Former state director for the California branch of American Family Association, which Southern Poverty Law Center named a Hate Group, and formed anti-gay Watchmen on the Walls group based in Latvia.

Facts
- Called for the criminalization of "the public advocacy of homosexuality."
- Is directly linked to anti-gay legislation in Uganda, which makes simply being gay punishable by death.
- Because of his intense influence and work in Uganda, has been blamed for the death of equality advocate David Kato.
- Is now advocating for anti-gay activism in Moldavia.

However according to Lively, he is being attacked for supposedly telling a basic truth. At least that's what he implies in a recent piece on his Defend The Family webpage. He wrote the piece after a lawsuit was announced against him in federal court for his "activities" in Uganda.

'Is NOM pulling a deception in its Starbucks boycott?' and other Monday midday news briefs

NOM's Magic Half Hour -- Are They Lying About #DumpStarbucks Signatures? - I've never been one for turning the screws or kicking a religious right group when it's down (I know. A personal flaw), but apparently I'm not the only one with questions regarding NOM's wisdom with going after Starbucks. A good friend of mine and excellent blogger, Matt Algren (he was probably the first to call bull@^!$ on the charge that Obama appointee Kevin Jennings counseled an under-aged boy to have sex with an adult) noticed something strange about NOM's claim regarding the signatures on its Dump Starbucks petition. You be the judge.

Moneybomb to Defeat Amendment One - Amendment One can be defeated in North Carolina. But it will take some effort. Victories worth winning are worth fighting with for with all of your might. 
  
200+ Gays And Lesbians Marry In Ohio Mass Wedding - Hot damn!

Anoka-Hennepin School District Rebuffs Conservative Group’s Requests - About time those liars were told to back off.

List of Award Recipients: 23rd Annual GLAAD Media Awards Presented by Ketel One and Wells Fargo - The GLAAD Media Awards were held last weekend. Congratulations to all of the winners, particularly to the motion picture Pariah.

NOM's 'Dump Starbucks' campaign a hysterical flop

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

On Wednesday of last week, the National Organization for Marriage announced a campaign to boycott Starbucks because of that organization's support of marriage equality. According to NOM’s press release:

The new protest campaign was announced after the annual Starbucks shareholders meeting today in Seattle, where NOM spokesmen queried the board on its new policies promoting gay marriage and demanded protection against discrimination for employees, vendors and customers who disagree.

"We respect the important role of businesses in providing goods, services and jobs, and that people of diverse moral views build great companies working together," Brown said. "But Starbucks has corporately, as an organization, endorsed and helped pass gay marriage in the state of Washington. Its executive vice president of partner resources has stated that gay marriage "is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company." Corporations should not take sides in a culture war that pits a company against half the American people, and nearly all its consumers in some international markets."

Of course this press release is totally different than what Brown was telliing NOM's supporters on its blog:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We are urging consumers across the globe to "Dump Starbucks" because the massive international corporation has taken a corporate-wide position that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm.

Starbucks did nothing as extreme as Brown makes it sounds and its CEO, Howard Shultz, clearly explained that during the shareholders meeting in question.

North Carolina residents - 'Amendment One is a bad idea'

After yesterday's post spotlighting an insulting and deceptive ad supporting Amendment One, which would place an anti-marriage equality amendment in that North Carolina's constitution, I think that today I should focus on truth - i.e. the reasons why Amendment One is a bad idea - as told by other NC residents.

The difference between the three videos today and the one yesterday is that these three videos aren't deceptive messes filled with talking points about "activist judges" and poor religious arguments created from sources outside of NC seeking to exploit ignorance and fear. These three ads feature NC officials and a pastor who break it down in a common sense manner:

Amendment One is a bad idea and North Carolinians should vote NO on May 8th.

Vote for MarriageNC ad makes the case against Amendment One

The ad above is from Vote for MarriageNC, the group attempting to pass Amendment One in North Carolina. Amendment One would place an anti-marriage equality amendment in that state's constitution.

My guess is that by using ordinary people, Vote for MarriageNC is trying to convey a "grassroots" message. However, in many ways, the ad actually makes the case against Amendment One.

Here are a few of my impressions of the ad:

1. It exploits the religious angle because  there is nothing in the proposed amendment about religion, Biblical or otherwise. And it gives the false impression that if Amendment One does not pass, then established heterosexual marriages will be in danger. I mean seriously, the way one of the people in this ad is conveying her thoughts, it's almost as if there is a fear that if Amendment One does not pass, within 24 hours, gay and lesbians are going to invade homes in attempts to kidnap heterosexually married partners.

2. The ad exploits economic and racial issues. A young man  at the beginning of the ad gives the impression that if the referendum does not pass, then it will be difficult to combat poverty. And then he uses the "activist judges" talking points and that really bothers me. As an African-American man I bristle when I see another African-American using the talking points of "activist judges overturning the will of the people." And while I am sure the man in question is reading cue cards (rather well I might add), someone should school him that if it weren't for supposed "activist judges," we wouldn't have the decisions of Loving vs. Virginia (which overturned laws against interracial marriage) or Brown vs. the Board of Education (which overturned segregation laws.)

3. Those children at the end? Now that was just tacky. What about the children in same-sex households who will be negatively affected should this bill pass? The irony is that if those voting against Amendment One had used children in their ad in the same manner as these folks had, it would be all over the National Organization for Marriage's blog about how "radical homosexuals are exploiting the innocence of children."

And lastly, one woman in the ad drives home the basic dishonesty of Amendment One. It begins at 1:00 when she says she is voting for Amendment One because she is married to one man for 30 years and she loves him dearly.

But she neglects to say how allowing gays and lesbians to receive that same courtesy (being married for 30 years to the person they love) would harm her marriage. And the sad thing is that I doubt that she can.

I can't help wondering how would she feel if someone told her that her marriage to her husband does not count regardless of how much love she has for him.

And I think whether she realizes it or not, she makes the case against Amendment One.

If you want to fight against Amendment One, go to Protect All Families to learn how.

Know Your LGBT History - Alan Turing

Alan Turing was one of the greatest scientists of all time. He is considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. It was his intelligence which helped the Allies defeat the Nazis during World War II. And what was his reward? Disgrace and suicide simply because he was gay. Never forget our heroes.







Past Know Your LGBT History posts:

'NOM's Starbucks boycott failing hard thus far' and other Friday midday news briefs

NOM's Starbucks Boycott: Day One - So far, NOM's boycott of Starbucks is FAILING!!!

Workplace Discrimination Costs Businesses $64 Billion Every Year [INFOGRAPHIC] - It's not nice to discriminate against lgbts. In fact, it costs.


A Great Rebuttal to the ‘Day of Dialogue’ Card - Every year, the religious right attempts to put a wrench in GLSEN's "Day of Silence." And every year, they fall on their faces.

GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project Demands Honesty from the Religious Right - Okay, you have seen me pump this piece up ad naseum, so allow me to continue. It's an original piece I wrote especially for the Huffington Post. And it has been received as a huge success.

Anti-gay pundit fails to debunk gay parenting study

Stanton

Maybe I'm an old fashioned type of guy but it seems to me that if someone has publicly called homosexuality an "evil lie of Satan," you wouldn't necessarily believe his supposed "debunking" of a study which supports the idea of gay parenting.

Such is the case with Focus on the Family's Glenn T. Stanton.

According to Equality Matters, Stanton took it upon himself attempt to debunk a study dealing with lesbian parents. But as Equality Matters proves, Stanton did less of a good job debunking the study and more of a good job showing his anti-gay bias:

Anti-gay groups are excited about a new Focus on the Family (FoF) brief that purports to debunk a popular study demonstrating the effectiveness of same-sex parenting. The brief, written by FoF’s Glenn T. Stanton, criticizes the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) – “the longest-running and largest prospective investigation of lesbian mothers and their children in the Unites States.”  According to Stanton, the NLLFS is “an orchestrated persuasion piece conducted and funded by gay-rights activists” and suffers from major methodological flaws.

A closer look at his critique, though, reveals just how desperate anti-gay groups are to attack studies about gay parenting that don’t affirm their talking points.

Stanton listed three reasons why the study should be debunked:

Study’s Authors Are Biased Activists
Study’s Sample Was Too Small, Not Representative
Study Contradicts Social Science On Family Structure


Equality Matters takes intricate detail in breaking down Stanton's errors and bias. For example, take Stanton's first claim that the study's authors are "biased activists:"

Stanton devotes much of his criticism of the NLLFS to pointing out the obvious – that the study was funded and conducted by groups and individuals interested in advancing LGBT equality. Stanton specifically criticizes the NLLFS’s “investigators” for specializing in LGBT studies and research:

Their professional research has been solely in the field of lesbian research. Examine the bibliographies offered in each of their published studies to date. They offer the reader no survey of the vast literature on how various family forms impact child development and well-being in varying degrees. They consult - nearly exclusively - only published studies that examine gay or lesbian issues.

Stanton also goes to great lengths to depict one of the study’s authors, Dr. Nanette Gartrell, as an “out of the mainstream” radical.

He fails to mention that Dr. Gartrell was educated at some of the nation's leading universities - Stanford, University of California, and Harvard. He also failed to mention that in her 35-year professional career she served on the medical school faculties of Harvard and UCSF, and that her published research focuses on a variety of topics including sexual exploitation of patients by health professionals.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether the NLLFS actually presents reliable information on the topic of same-sex parenting. Stanton even admits that his criticisms of the study’s authors amount to little more than an ad hominem:

But the facts that NLLFS is initiated and conducted by lesbian activists, funded by foundations backing GLBT activism and that the Principle Investigator is outside the mainstream of the lesbian community do not mean the study is not a reputable academic investigation. It only lets us know who’s behind it and their possible motivations.

What matters is the structure, execution and reporting of the study itself.

According to Dr. Gartrell, many of the researchers involved in the study are heterosexual. 

Moreover, Stanton fails to mention his own “motivations” for criticizing the NLLFS. FoF’s website displays an article in which Stanton condemns homosexuality as “a particularly evil lie of Satan” which “profoundly and thoroughly” challenges the image of the “Triune God.”

All in all, the Equality Matters piece is an excellent read of the dangers of someone with whose expertise are simply "writing about family" and calling himself a Christian taking it upon himself to debunk work which he obviously doesn't know from a wart on his finger.

Stanton's pitiful attempt to debunk this study proves that he is way out of his league.

But I guess he figures he can fake it because apparently "Jesus loves him."

Racist, homophobic graphic of Obama rocks NC marriage equality fight

Last week when President Obama voiced opposition to the upcoming North Carolina referendum vote which would ban marriage equality in the state, several groups supporting this referendum voiced their displeasure.

However, the prize for bad taste and lack of subtlety goes to the Meck Deck, an official blog of the conservative John Locke Foundation for the following image which should lead decent people speechless:

The graphic, which has since been taken down, accompanied a piece which claimed that Obama was "pandering for votes." My guess is that the author was implying that Obama was offering fried chicken to African-Americans and sex to gays The awful mess was written by Tara Servatius, former right-wing radio commentator for Charlotte's WBT AM, and a former regular contributor to Meck Deck.

I say former regular contributor because she abruptly resigned. According to Pam's House Blend, John Hood, president of the John Lock Foundation sent out a press release claiming that Servatius was merely a freelance writer. He also said that he was embarrassed and angered over the incident.

'Bigots pull 'Nazi card' against GLAAD' and other Thursday midday news briefs

Liberty Counsel member and resident anti-gay pundit Matt Barber (seen here not looking very happy - draw your own conclusions) once said:

"It's often said that the first to call the other a Nazi has lost the argument."

With that in mind, let's take a look at two honorary members of Barber's list of argument losers:



AFA's Bryan Fischer:

Linda Harvey:

"Recognize this? Hate branding, focusing on Jews, succeeded in branding them as the “enemy” in public opinion in Nazi Germany. It’s the method used today by Islamic radicals who spread ludicrous fables about Jews in many mosques."

The irony is that Harvey didn't even make GLAAD's list (jealous much, Linda?). However thanks to statements like the one above, her organization, Mission America did make Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-gay hate groups.

Gary Bauer latest to acknowledge #glaadcap inclusion, latest to decontextualize phrase 'free speech' - And then there is anti-gay pundit Gary Bauer. While he doesn't pull the Nazi references (give him time,) he does whine about free speech. Check out his list of homophobic statements:

- Pushes inaccurate science: "More importantly, however, the government has an obligation to promote public policy that is best for the general welfare and to discriminate against behaviors that adversely impact society and public health. Tobacco use is heavily regulated by the state and smoking is strongly discouraged. A major study conducted by Oxford University demonstrated that homosexual conduct is three times more deadly than smoking. Homosexual behavior is fraught with adverse health affects. (sic) Again, this is not opinion, but documented medical fact."  (*The researchers behind that Oxford study, conducted at the height of the AIDS crisis, have condemned the way folks like Bauer have twisted their findings)

- Chose the Obama Administration's choice to simply invite gay-headed families to the annual White House Easter Roll as one of the "100 Mistakes, Misstatements and Missteps in Obama’s First 100 Days"

- "Ex-gay" advocacy: "Story after story calls for everything from new hate crimes laws, to same-sex marriage, to pro-homosexual education policies. But policies like these would only compound the tragedy of homosexuality."

Like I said, guys. Own your statements or apologize for them. This censorship whine is old.

In other news:

Michael Heath Returns To Maine - Bad for the religious right. Good for us.

FAMiLY Leader: Gay Behavior Is ‘Personally Harmful And Societally Harmful’ - And naturally, he is offended that a child living in same-sex household has been invited to speak at an area college. After all, these children are not supposed be acknowledged (snark).

State Department Condemns Nobel Prize Winner’s Anti-Gay Remarks - Good for the State Department!

FRC says Kirk Cameron 'simply disagreed' on marriage, on par with Obama; is lying - For one thing, President Obama never called homosexuality destructive. And I have to say this - for someone claiming that they are being "silenced," Cameron seems to be running to every media outlet. I mean actual Christian martyrs showed more dignity at the time of their deaths than THIS bozo.

NOM vs. Starbucks - no contest

After suffering the embarrassment yesterday in New Hampshire, the National Organization for Marriage seems to be careening to another one. The group is now taking on the company Starbucks. From NOM President Brian Brown:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We are urging consumers across the globe to "Dump Starbucks" because the massive international corporation has taken a corporate-wide position that marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become the norm.

I emphasized that part of Brown's statement to demonstrate how much of a lie it is. Starbucks recently chose to endorse marriage equality in Washington State. At no time did Starbucks say anything about wanting "one man and one woman marriage" to be eliminated.

In stark contrast to Brown's accusatory tone, Starbucks has been very concise and cordial in explaining its position. Witness the following Q&;A between Starbuck CEO Howard Shultz and a NOM representative at the company's shareholder meeting yesterday:



And when asked pretty much the same thing by another NOMbie:



According to Jeremy Hooper, this is what we need to know about that second gentleman:

Tom Strobar is President of Citizen Action now (www.citizenactionnow.com) and author of the first shareholder resolution against child pornography, religious bigotry, fetal tissue research, abortifacient drugs and domestic partner benefits. Strobhar is the author of numerous articles on pro-life and pro-family business matters, including the only pro-life shareholder resolutions to appear on corporate ballots in 1991 through 2005. Strobhar has served as chairman of Life Decisions International (www.fightpp.org) and has been a Board member of the National Association of Christian Financial Consultants. A graduate of Columbia University, Mr. Strobhar has the dubious distinction of being described in Pat Buchannan’s newsletter as “a one man wrecking crew.” Glamour magazine described him as “The Financier,” “a major Washington power player,” and a “financial whiz.” SOURCE: SpecialGuests.com

Strobhar was also involved in the AFA's Ford Boycott back in 2006.

Well I feel like getting some coffee. Starbucks anyone?