Monthly Archives: March 2012 24,959!

We are so close to meeting Brian Brown's target of 25,000 by the end of this week.

Can you find a friend to go to and push us over the top!?


Dump Starbucks Pledge Signer Says Starbucks "Pushing the Gay Agenda"

The Seacoast Online interviews one of the good people who signed our Dump Starbucks pledge:

"...For Mary Saunders of Rochester, who signed and sent one of the campaign's form protest letters to the Portsmouth Herald, the threat of the so-called gay agenda is greater than the threat posed by same-sex marriage alone.

Saunders said she found the letter online, though she couldn't recall the Web site. It states: "Starbucks Corporation has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage."

It states she will no longer buy at Starbucks and implores others to "dump" the habit.

The Web site offered additional information outlining the potential impact of Starbucks' policy, said Saunders.

... Starbucks' support of same-sex marriage is "pushing the gay agenda," she said."

Video: Debunking the "Gay Marriage = Economic Stimulus" Myth

Kalley Yanta debunks the tired meme that claims protecting marriage somehow harms the economy.

She argues: "This argument is internally inconsistent with other arguments gay-marriage backers advance. For example, they argue that more gay and lesbian couples are making their homes are making their home in Minnesota, so we should redefine marriage to accommodate them. Yet if true, that is happening when we already define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

She goes on to say: "The facts show that states with marriage protection amendments already in their state constitution are our top performing economic states."

She then cites four studies supporting her claims. It's a great summary!

Please take a moment to watch and share it this weekend:

Gay British MP: Gay Activists in Britain Avoided U.S. Mistake of Attacking Marriage

The Washington Post writes today about David Cameron's (faltering) attempt to make gay marriage a "conservative" cause in the UK, but what is more interesting to us are these comments by an openly gay Labor MP:

"...By offering the proposal, Cameron has put his party out in front of even many gay advocates here who had seen other issues, such as stiffer penalties for hate crimes, as higher priorities. Although gay groups are vigorously campaigning in support of the measure, advocates initially debated whether they should even endorse a proposal seen by some as bringing a patriarchal and archaic institution to same-sex couples.

“This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships.

He added: “We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage,’ and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the U.S., where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”

Update: Storobin Leads by 1 in NY Special Election Recount

This election is coming right down to the wire, as PolitickerNY reports:

The latest turn in the special election to replace Carl Kruger in the State Senate has given the Republican candidate, David Storobin, a gigantic lead of one vote over his Democratic opponent Lew Fidler, multiple tipsters toldThe Politicker.

...And, with all of the invalid absentee and provisional ballots finished being reviewed and contested today, Mr. Storobin’s lead has hopped up to that single point.

These tiny shifts in the margin are relatively inconsequential, however, due to the hundreds of contested absentee and provisional ballots that were simply set aside when one of the two campaigns objected to them. These votes will now remain uncounted for three days to allow time for a court order should one of the campaigns seek legal action, so Mr. Storobin’s tiny lead could hold through the weekend.

If there’s no court order, the contested ballots will then be tallied up at the Board of Elections. And then, if the margin either of the candidates is leading by is less than 0.5%of the 20,000 total votes cast (around 110 in this election), there will be an automatic hand recount of every ballot.

TVNEWSER and Others Take Issue with How MSNBC's Roberts Handled Scheduling Gaffe

Alex Weprin of TVNewser:

Thomas Roberts was slated to interview the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher, but the camera feed showed an empty chair, with Roberts saying that Gallagher didn’t show up (h/t Inside Cable News).

There was just one big, glaring problem: Gallagher was ready to appear, but was in a different studio.

ICN took issue with how Roberts handled the situation:

The proper way to handle it is to say that a guest was scheduled to appear but couldn’t make it in time and we hope they will appear in the future. Then you move on and don’t refer to it again. Given that you don’t know what actually happened you must err on the side of caution…for reasons that now seem all too obvious given that it was MSNBC booking that screwed up.

300,000 Oppose SSM in Biggest UK Petition Since Election

The UK Telegraph on a groundswell of public support for marriage:

More than 300,000 people have joined a campaign against David Cameron’s plan to legalise same-sex marriage.

Organisers claimed that their petition had become the biggest public campaign since the 2010 election.

It highlights the support for the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, they said.

Earlier this month, the Government proposed redefining civil marriage laws so that the term can apply to civil unions between same-sex couples. There will be no change to religious marriage.

Senior Conservatives, including ministers, have joined Christian leaders in opposing the proposals.

The leader of Britain’s Sikh organisations said the proposal was an “assault on religion” while the country’s largest Muslim grouping has also voiced its opposition.

The Coalition 4 Marriage set up a petition against the plan, which has so far attracted more than 300,200 signatures. The group is calling on the Government to retain the current definition of marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman for life.

Colin Hart, the campaign director, said the surge in support since the Government began its consultation was further evidence of the unpopularity of the proposal.

“There has been a staggering response to the petition, launched last month, which shows just how many ordinary men and women care about this issue,” he said.

“I hope the Government will consider the growing opposition to its proposals, which are being pushed without the British people being given an opportunity to make their views clear.”

Concerned Women of America: Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters

The Concerned Women for America blog:

...What is most frustrating about Starbucks’ liberal support is that it totally disregards the traditional views of many customers and staff members. Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Starbucks should heed Mr. Strohbar’s warnings.

Ponder the impact of lost business from loyal customers. In this economy, I was willing to spend more on a cup of coffee than a gallon of gas! Big Oil vs. Big Coffee; I’m not sure which would win. Coffee-loving, traditional values voters deserve more respect.

I guess it’s time to bite the bullet and drink the overly strong office coffee.

Learn more and take action at

"GOP Senators Who Backed SSM Face Backlash at Home"

This news is slightly dated but still important - the most notable thing that has changed since this was published is that a challenger to Sen. Saland has also emerged!

EDITOR'S NOTE: The original content of this post has been removed at the request of the copyright owner.

PPP Poll Shows NC Marriage Protection Amendment Up 20 Points

Facts are stubborn things and no amount of PPP's framing can avoid the simple fact that North Carolina's Marriage Protection Amendment is up 20 points, six weeks before voters head to the polls.

It is also being supported by a majority of Democrats in the state:

Learn more about the North Carolina Marriage Protection Amendment at

Full results of the PPP poll here.

Carl Paladino Throws Support Behind Sen. Saland Challenger

Politics on the Hudson Albany Watch blog:

Carl Paladino, the failed 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate, endorsed Neil Di Carlo today in his GOP primary bid against Sen. Stephen Saland, R-Poughkeepsie.

... Like Paladino, Di Carlo is a conservative Republican, and both oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. Saland was one of four Republican senators to vote in favor of same-sex marriage last year.

Paladino doesn’t mention the same-sex marriage vote specifically, but said Di Carlo shares the values of the district and is a businessman “with an unwavering commitment to conservative Republican values.”

Paladino, the Buffalo businessman who lost to Cuomo during a troubled campaign, has vowed to back candidates this year for state Legislature and overthrow the Senate GOP leadership.

New Senate Lines Carefully Exclude Black Churches from Sen. Grisanti's District

Yet more fall-out from Sen. Mark Grisanti's unpopular flip-flop on marriage, as Capital Tonight reports:

"...[Ramapo Town Councilman Yitzchok Ullman] also argues that the new lines have been “impermissibly drawn based on religious considerations.” He’s not the only one in the state with that complaint. The black churches that used to be represented by WNY Republican Sen. Mark Grisanti are none too pleased that they’ve been drawn out of his new district – a move seen as done in part to insulated him against backlash for his “yes” vote on same-sex marriage, and also to make his district less Democrat-dominated.

LSN: "Like Marriage? Then Dump Starbucks, Says NOM"


[NOM co-founder Maggie] Gallagher said that she doesn’t “generally support boycotts.” “But Starbucks has voluntarily decided—as a corporation—to associate its brand with a major political issue,” she said, noting that the decision would seem to contradict the company’s promises in some parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East, not to subsidize political causes.

NOM Cultural Director Thomas Peters told that the boycott is only in its first stage. “People don’t want their coffee company taking sides in a culture war,” said Peters.

Ultimately, he said, companies should allow employees to exercise their beliefs with individual donations. “Certainly we want Starbucks employees to feel free to individually support marriage without it hurting their career advancement chances within Starbucks,” he said.

For more information, click here.

"Gay Marriage has Backfired...", NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

NOM Marriage News

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Gay marriage has backfired on the Democratic Party."

With those words one of my personal heroes, New York State Sen Rev. Rubén Díaz (a Democrat from the Bronx) opened his press release titled, "What you should know."

"You should know that since Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed for gay marriage in the State of New York and convinced the Democratic Party in the Assembly and the Senate to follow his lead to legalize gay marriage, the Democratic Party in New York City has not won a single victory.

"Starting with the defeat of David Weprin by Bob Turner for the Congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, and most recently with the embarrassing defeat of Lew Fidler by David Storobin for the Senate seat vacated by Carl Kruger, the Democratic Party lost. In each special election, the Democratic candidate was expected to win handily given the composition of registered democrats in each district, and given the low turnout expected in special elections."

Gay marriage hurt Democrats in each of these races, he points out, and there is no way to spin it:

"For a time, the Democratic Party was key in New York City politics, and it was virtually impossible for a Republican to win a seat in the State legislature in New York City. That was before gay marriage. ...This has shown to be destructive for the Democratic Party and I hope that elected officials in other states are paying attention."

Of course the Democrats were not alone in bringing gay marriage to New York. Republican majority leader Dean Skelos volunteered to bring the bill up for a vote—he did not have to. And four Republicans provided the crucial margin of difference.

Sen Rev. Díaz goes on to point to the other side of the aisle:

"Now we can all wait and see what happens to the future of the four Republicans who supported gay marriage when it was forced to the floor of the Senate for a vote, because the way I see things, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its Executive Director, Brian Brown has been active and instrumental in contributing and supporting with financial resources those individuals who run against gay marriage supporters. So far, Brian Brown has been very effective and it might happen, that the four Republicans, might lose their Senate seats solely because of their vote on gay marriage."

NOM is not a partisan organization or a stalking horse for either party. We are a movement of people of every race, creed, color—and party—willing to stand up for marriage.

Sen. Rev. Díaz happened to speak out the same week that the mainstream media decided to pick up on a story that the National Organization for Marriage is playing racial politics "dividing gays and blacks."

It's a media brouhaha based on language in a three-year-old in-house document that was released by the Maine courts describing a number of NOM projects for 2009 and 2010.

Let me be the first to say that the tone of the language in that document as quoted by the press is inapt. Here's something I know from the bottom of my soul: It would be enormously arrogant for anyone at NOM to believe that we can make or provoke African-American or Latino leaders do anything. The Black and Hispanic Democrats who stand up for marriage do so on principle—and get hit with a wave of vituperative attacks like nothing I have ever seen. We did not cause it, nor can we claim credit for these men and women's courage in standing up in defense of our most fundamental institution: marriage.

To Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry I would say: This is your movement. You are its leaders. Only you can hope to change the vicious attacks being made on Black and Hispanic Democrats (or white Republicans for that matter!) who don't agree with you on gay marriage.

We had another small example of the kind of vituperation gay-marriage advocates are generating when a woman wrote a letter to her local newspaper in Syracuse politely supporting our campaign:

I have just learned that the Starbucks Corp. has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage. I was shocked to hear of a major corporation willing to alienate such a large portion of their constituents in favor of a political agenda.

I have decided that I will no longer buy my coffee at Starbucks—there are plenty of community coffeehouses that both support my values and need my business. ...

It's time to dump the Starbucks habit, at least for my family. And I invite others to join me by learning more at

On the newspaper's website, an advocate of gay marriage threatened to go after her job as a result:

"As a gay man I actually have to question your ability to provide fair and balanced judgement and therefore treatment to gay people in your job as a nurse. For this reason I am sending a letter to Crouse Hospital detailing this and asking that they look into it."

Now you and I know he's probably just spinning hot air. But the NOM Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance was launched to give a voice to people who have actually lost their jobs because they oppose gay marriage.

But another blogger on the site noticed how unusual and ugly that kind of attack is:

"Someone is going to go to their employer and put their job at risk, because they have a belief that differs? Are we in second grade? Talk about hatred, discrimination and lack of respect for the feelings of others! If one can't have, or does not possess, the attributes they demand of others, what does that make, or say about, them? There are plenty of people, in life and on this site, that disagree, wholeheartedly, with many of the things I believe and post. ... Never, ever, have I dreamed of, or been tempted to, curtail their right to their opinion, their ability to state that opinion or 'go after' their employment, their families or any other personal aspect of their lives."

It would be wrong for anyone to try to generate that kind of hatred against good people who disagree on important moral issues like same-sex marriage Right, Joe? Right, Evan?

This is your movement, Human Rights Campaign. The ugliness it is generating is not consistent with the civil rights movement you claim to want to represent.

The underlying narrative of the MSM attacks on NOM generated by this document's release is absurd: The guts of the "Not a Civil Right Project" was to reach out across lines of race, creed and party to work with great heroes like Sen. Rev. Díaz, Bishop George McKinney and other pastors at the Church of God in Christ (the largest black Pentecostal denomination), Bishop Harry Jackson, and other leaders in the black and Hispanic churches.

Moreover, we at NOM are not the only people who have noticed this split over gay marriage in the Democratic Party. The Atlantic reports that Pres. Obama refuses to endorse gay marriage because of the strong opposition to gay marriage among African Americans:

"The conventional wisdom has been that supporting gay marriage would alienate blue-collar whites, and that's been the main reason he's [Pres. Obama has] been hesitant to come out in favor before the general election. But in this case, it's a crucial element of his own base that's preventing the president from taking bolder steps to advance a cause that he seems to believe in, but hasn't publicly embraced."

According to The Capitol Tonight, Albany political elites have reportedly responded to the political fallout of gay marriage vote by trying to limit the power of Orthodox Jews—by splitting up Ramapo Jews into multiple districts to dilute their influence, and taking black churches out of the Buffalo district of GOP marriage-betrayer Mark Grisanti:

The black churches that used to be represented by WNY Republican Sen. Mark Grisanti are none too pleased that they've been drawn out of his new district—a move seen as done in part to insulated him against backlash for his "yes" vote on same-sex marriage, and also to make his district less Democrat-dominated.

As for the kind of hatred directed against African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage? Don't believe us. Believe the Washington Post, which published a front page story on Feb. 23, "Black Pastors Take Heat for Not Viewing Same-Sex Marriage As a Civil Rights Matter."

"All of a sudden, they are bigots and haters—they who stood tall against discrimination. ...They are black men, successful ministers, leaders of their community. ...Sometimes, the pastors say, the name-calling and the anger sting."

This is your movement, guys, only you can change its tone.

Meanwhile, in just a few weeks people of every race, creed and color will come together to decide the future of marriage in North Carolina. If you want to know why we stand up to the attacks, it's because I know we are speaking for so many good people like you.

Here's a few of many voters in North Carolina, talking about why they will vote yes on the Marriage Amendment.


Last week we launched our Dump Starbucks campaign, and boy have you responded!

As I write this Thursday morning, 23,585 people have signed the petition, promising to dump Starbucks. (The neat thing about the website is that if you put in your zip code, it will pull up for you the number of the local Starbucks so you can also call and make your voice heard.)

If you haven't done so yet, can you please take just 30 seconds, go to, and add your name to the petition? My goal for this week is to get to 25,000 signatures. We are so close—can you help?

Rich white guys like Mayor Bloomberg, Tim Gill and Howard Schultz are determined to push gay marriage on us "whether we like or not!" Here's your chance to fight back!

We are in this for the long haul. We know the left is far more organized online. This is our chance to not only speak back to Starbucks but build the infrastructure we need to make sure your voice is heard.

Next week, and for weeks thereafter, we'll have important news on widening the reach of the Dump Starbucks protest campaign. Thanks to the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America,, and every other group—and person!—who has promoted Dump on their blogs or in their newsletter. Shane Vander Hart, an influential Iowa blogger at Caffeinated Thoughts, for example, wrote this:

...Starbucks has claimed to be "post politics and post partisan" nevertheless decided to jump into the political fray back in January in order as a corporation throw its support behind same sex marriage legislation in Washington State. They are obviously free to do that, and we are free to demonstrate our disapproval. It seems to be a odd business decision to make a decision that will alienate roughly half of your customer base.

And yet they did. Voluntarily and apparently enthusiastically. ...

If the CEO, Howard Schultz, decided to just personally get involved that's a completely different thing, but they decided as a corporation to get involved—shareholders, employees, and customers who believe differently be damned.

Until they shift back into a neutral position, while I'll miss my French Roast Coffee Beans and Café Americanos, I can get my coffee elsewhere.

Here's how Christian Broadcast News reported it.

And here's the head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project, Jonathan Baker, in an interview with the Christian Post.

The debate over gay marriage in Great Britain, which is being promoted by the once-Conservative party there, has brought some interesting new voices into this fray.

Brendan O'Neill is a self-described libertarian and humanist who once wrote for a Marxist publication.

I want to leave you with this thought from his incredibly insightful essay, "Why Gay Marriage Is a Very Bad Idea":

"The reason the gay-marriage issue can feel like it came from nowhere, and is now everywhere, is because it is an entirely top-down, elite-driven thing. The true driving force behind it is not any real or publicly manifested hunger amongst homosexual couples to get wed, far less a broader public appetite for the reform of the institution of marriage; rather it is the need of the political and media class for an issue through which to signify its values and advertise its superiority. Gay marriage is not a real issue—it is a cultural signifier, like wearing a pink ribbon to show you care about breast cancer."

A new morality is being created and fobbed off on the American people, complete with "enforcers" to "stigmatize" good people who disagree. At the end of his press release, Sen. Rev Díaz said "Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends and foes: Fasten your seat belts, because I am afraid that it's going to be a very bumpy ride."

Thank you for being there with NOM, every step of the way.

Dump Starbucks: Letter to the Editor Edition

Colleen in Syracuse took action and wrote a letter to the editor of her local Syracuse newspaper explaining why she has pledged to DumpStarbucks:

I have just learned that the Starbucks Corp. has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage. I was shocked to hear of a major corporation willing to alienate such a large portion of their constituents in favor of a political agenda.

I have decided that I will no longer buy my coffee at Starbucks — there are plenty of community coffeehouses that both support my values and need my business. While there's little that I can do alone to make Starbucks reconsider its position, together we can make a statement. There are many in our community, I know, who believe in marriage and would be deeply offended to know that a portion of every cup of Starbucks coffee they buy is being used to lobby in favor of same-sex marriage.

It's time to dump the Starbucks habit, at least for my family. And I invite others to join me by learning more at

Bravo, Colleen! You can join her and send a letter to your local newspaper right here.