No wonder President Obama doesn't want to officially endorse same-sex marriage -- he's already underwater on the issue compared to Mitt Romney, according to the Pew Research Center, which found that among the 28% of registered voters who think the issue of gay marriage is "very important", they prefer Romney 50% to Obama's 43%.
Just another sign that gay marriage is not a winning issue when you are seeking national office.
Christine Dhanagom of LifeSiteNews:
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is calling for an investigation of the Obama Administration, a liberal news outlet, and a gay rights group, all of whom NOM says may have violated federal law through their involvement in releasing the organization’s confidential tax information to the public.
... NOM President Brian Brown is crying foul, though, and says he has evidence that the document came straight from the IRS.
... In a letter to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration requesting an investigation, Brown wrote: “The publication of the officially filed Schedule B can only have occurred as the result of a third party’s illegal actions: either one or more IRS employees or an external source who has unlawfully obtained access to confidential IRS computers and confidential taxpayer information. In either case, it is clear that a federal crime has been committed.”
The organization has also pointed out that the President of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, is a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.
Welcome! Thank you so much for taking the DumpStarbucks.com pledge. You and more than 30,000 other Americans are standing up to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and letting him know we think Starbucks should be selling coffee—not pushing gay marriage! Thank you.
I'm Jonathan Baker, head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project. I was there at the Starbucks annual meeting at the Seattle Opera House in March because I really wanted to ask Howard a question: His executives were claiming the corporation endorsed gay marriage in Washington State, and that they did so because gay marriage is "core" to the Starbucks brand. Like you, I respect the role that businesses play in creating great products and services, as well as jobs, so I wanted to make sure that this view that Starbucks=Gay Marriage was endorsed at the top.
And like you I was shocked when Howard told me "yes." So we launched our ongoing DumpStarbucks.com campaign to let these rich guys in their Seattle bubble know: diversity and tolerance should include us too! Don't trample on the sacred values of so many of your customers and employees, Howard. It's not nice, it's not smart, and it's certainly not inclusive!
Each week, I'd like to share with you the latest developments in this campaign, the news stories and more importantly the stories from people like you who are making your voices heard!
Most recently we have taken DumpStarbucks.com international! Last week our Mandarin, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, and Indonesian translations of the Dump Starbucks website went live. While the international effort is still in its infancy, folks in China are beginning to take notice, with Beijing Shots offering a liberal take on our site and advertising. National Public Radio also picked up on our international efforts.
This past week OneNewsNow picked up on the DumpStarbucks.com campaign with their story, "What Coffee is your Church Drinking?"
Let me share with you the courageous story of one DumpStarbucks.com supporter who emailed her experience to us.
At about 1PM today (4-4-12), I walked into Starbucks, Flower Hill (Gaithersburg, MD) and asked to speak to the manager. A young woman appeared, speaking with an Eastern European accent. I told her that we had been regular Starbucks patrons (including at this location), but that we no longer would be...anywhere. I then said: "We, and many we know, have chosen to join the international boycott of Starbucks, because of their recently-announced corporate 'core values', which include the support of same-sex marriage. I oppose this policy for religious reasons. This is a serious moral issue, which affects our whole society. Thus, it is an infringement upon and an offense to my religious values & freedoms." The manager answered very sympathetically and courteously, saying, "Oh, I didn't know about this [corporate policy]; I'm so sorry this offends you!" I then asked her to pass on my comments to the corporate level, and she readily agreed to do so.
At this point I nodded & said, "Thank you for listening."
Tell us what you think. Is this something you'd be willing to do? We’d love to hear your story, whether it involves going to a store manager, or simply sharing your thoughts with a few friends. Just hit "reply."
I have one thing you can do today to help make your voice heard. If you are a Facebook user can you go on your Facebook page and "like" the DumpStarbucks.com Facebook page. Thank you so much for caring about God's vision of marriage—and about corporate fairness. We look forward to continuing to work with you as we support marriage and the workplace rights of employees and customers to hold personal opinions on marriage without being told by corporations their views are unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Baker
Director—Corporate Fairness Project
National Organization for Marriage
Dear Marriage Supporter,
I'll keep this message brief, but we have an urgent need in North Carolina and I need your help immediately.
As we expected, our opponents in North Carolina have just launched a million dollar ad campaign, flooding the airwaves with outrageous lies and misrepresentations.
And the North Carolina campaign doesn't have the resources to respond.
Tami Fitzgerald, head of Vote for Marriage NC, tells me that they have had to cut their advertising budget by two-thirds simply because they don't have the money...and that the pro-SSM forces in North Carolina have just placed a television schedule that will outnumber pro-marriage ads 3 to 1.
I am asking each of us to dig deep and do whatever you can to help protect marriage in North Carolina right now. Please click here to give directly to the North Carolina campaign.
No matter how much you can afford, it is absolutely critical that you take immediate action!
Here's the good news. Our opponents know that the people of North Carolina believe in marriage. In fact, their ads never once mention same-sex marriage!
But they are flooding the airwaves of North Carolina with misleading messages suggesting that the marriage amendment will strip single people of domestic violence protections and deprive kids of health insurance.
They've made these claims before. Virginia's amendment is very similar to North Carolina's, and opponents there claimed that the amendment would remove domestic violence protections from unmarried people—but it wasn't true in Virginia, and it's not true in North Carolina.
In fact, 30 states have marriage protection amendments, and nowhere have the opponents scare tactics proven true.
But we must have the resources to expose these lies—on television, so that the people who are watching these ads will also see the truth presented side by side.
Out-of-state gay marriage organizations like the Human Rights Campaign have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into North Carolina, knowing the critical strategic impact of this state—the last state in the South without a marriage amendment.
We don't have millions of dollars from Hollywood liberals and Wall Street insiders, but we do have hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans across the country who care about marriage and are aware of how significant this battle is.
My friend, for the first time, I'm truly concerned that we could lose this battle if we don't have the resources to respond to this campaign of lies and misrepresentations. I can't overstate the disastrous impact of such a defeat, not only in North Carolina, but nationwide.
The clock is ticking and the same-sex marriage groups have fully funded their deceptive media campaign, spreading their lies and misleading the voters. We must be able to fight back with the truth, but with just two weeks left, time is very short.
Please respond before it's too late.
See it for yourself!
Find out more at VoteFORMarriageNC.com! Early voting has begun!
The North Carolina Democratic Party is roiled with these scandals, as voters begin to vote on the Marriage Amendment.
We have no comment, we just report:
Rebecca Burgin, a long-time former girlfriend of former North Carolina Democratic Party executive director Jay Parmley, told The Daily Caller that she believes Parmley infected her with HIV.
Parmley resigned on April 15 amid sexual harassment allegations from a former young male staffer.
Burgin, a 29-year-old Oklahoman, has shared her story with TheDC, including the revelation that Parmley’s lawyer offered her health coverage, paid for by the Democratic National Committee, to manage her illness. She ultimately declined that offer, fearing it would constitute insurance fraud. Parmley, she said, abandoned her a few months later.
On April 13, TheDC first exposed allegations, leveled in December by former North Carolina Democratic Party communications staffer Adriadn Ortega, that Parmley showed him a picture of a penis, gave him unwanted shoulder rubs and made apparent sexual advances toward him. Ortega also alleged that Parmley discussed with him in detail his past sexual activity, including “solicit[ing] sex from gay websites.”
Parmley’s ex-girlfriend Rebecca Burgin told TheDC that Parmley forever changed her life by making her HIV-positive. She’s worried, she said, that Parmley may have done to someone else what he did to her.
“My motivation for talking to you was that I have read the articles, I have read the letter [that Ortega sent to Parmley detailing sexual harassment allegations] and everything like that,” Burgin said.
“And after Jay and I broke up, the biggest concern that I had was, ‘what if this happened to somebody else? Would he do this to someone else?’ … My biggest concern is for anybody else that has had a relationship with him that he did not tell.”
Burgin told TheDC that she believes Parmley “prey[s] on” younger adults like her and Ortega.
“When Jay and I met, I was 20 and he was 32,” she said. “To me, it seems to be a pattern, potentially… The unnerving thing to me is that it looks like he uses his position of authority to prey on younger adults.” -- The Daily Caller
Todd Starnes at FOX News & Commentary:
Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.
The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.
According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
Watch this video and it's pretty clear that African-American and Latino leaders who oppose same-sex marriage are doing so out of deep conviction, like other Americans:
The widow of a lawmaker who was the driving force behind a gay marriage referendum on next month's ballot in North Carolina told thousands of conservative Christians on Friday it's now up to them to get people to the polls to change the state constitution.
Mary Frances Forrester and other conservative leaders asked participants at the Return America rally to work to protect the supremacy of traditional marriage from potential court challenges.
...Forrester, wife of the late Sen. Jim Forrester, asked women in the audience to recruit others to vote for the amendment leading up to the May 8 primary. The early voting period began Thursday.
"You are responsible for nine other women that you can make sure go to the polls and vote and better still vote early because this is the time and you are here 'for such a time is this,'" said Forrester, making a reference to a verse in the Book of Esther.
State Capitol Police estimated the crowd in downtown Raleigh at about 3,000, as churches and Christian schools bused in members and students to the Halifax Mall.
Opponents of Minnesota's Marriage Protect Amendment sometimes claim there is "no threat" to marriage in their state, but this news proves once again how wrong they are:
On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court declined to review a case brought by three same-sex couples who claiming the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against them and against the son of one of the pairs.
The plaintiffs, who were all legally married elsewhere, filed suit [PDF] in 2010 in state court after Hennepin County refused to issue them marriage licenses. After a trial court judge dismissed the suit, the couples, who constitute the nonprofit Marry Me Minnesota, appealed. In January, the Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case means the matter may now proceed to trial in Hennepin County. There’s very little chance it will be resolved before next fall’s amendment vote.
News that the case will move forward is not likely to spark universal celebration among advocates of same-sex marriage, some of whom fear it could be used to fuel arguments in favor of amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage. -- MinnPost
As much as Sen. Alesi is now complaining about how much money he will have to spend defending himself against a primary challenge from within his own party after he betrayed his constituents and voted for gay marriage, he is still attempting to earn accolades for that vote outside of his state. Talk about a marriage of convenience:
Country music star Chely Wright discusses gay marriage in a special New York City edition of the Pennsylvania Cable Network’s “In Session.” This half hour program, produced by Widener’s Law & Government Institute, will air statewide on Sunday, April 22 and 29 at 6:00 p.m.
Wright, a lesbian, married her partner last year in Connecticut; a state which legally recognized such a marital partnership in 2008.
Republican New York state Senator Jim Alesi (R- NY) will join Wright on the PCN program. He was the first Republican to support the legislation which passed last June in the Republican-majority Senate of New York state. -- PCN TV
The Heritage Foundation reveals a deeply unsettling project by the campaign to reelect President Obama:
"...This week, on the president’s ominous “Truth Team“ campaign website, his staff listed the names of eight of his likely opponent’s donors.
... After each name, the campaign lists deeds that they find objectionable or “less-than-reputable” that mostly boil down to business transactions that included alleged outsourcing or layoffs and involvement in the oil energy industry.
... This follows a multi-year effort by the ongoing Obama campaign to vilify specific donors to competing philosophical causes and demands that organizations release lawfully protected donor lists or donors reveal lawfully private and personal financial information.
In each of these instances, President Obama has relied on a vast grassroots network to coerce, bully, boycott and vilify individuals lawfully taking part in the political process, just as his own donors and supporters are freely allowed to engage.
... The media has so far given this White House tactic a pass in this administration. What name will elicit a defense of Constitutional freedoms? Must it be one of their own, as was the case under Nixon?
Shouldn’t every American be protected against the heavy hand of governmental intimidation? The President must explain his intimidation of people who have lawfully participated in the political system and have borne no electoral injustice to our nation other than participating in lawful industries the President finds objectionable and supporting organizations and campaigns the President opposes.
Our profound gratitude to Brian Raum, who serves as senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, for coming to our defense in TownHall:
The unfounded attacks and insults lodged against the National Organization for Marriage have increased recently by an ever ravenous opposition. The Humans Rights Campaign has shamelessly published NOMs confidential IRS records, and last month a federal judge unsealed some of NOM’s constitutionally protected internal reports.
Not surprisingly, those who seek to redefine marriage immediately seized upon the opportunity to attack NOM based on these documents with salacious accusations and vilifications.
NOM’s political adversaries have violently reacted to its efforts to leverage an inconvenient truth: African-Americans and Hispanics, as a community, generally reject same-sex “marriage.” They don’t see the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue. And it was this disdain for that comparison which compelled large numbers of minority voters in 2008 to vote for Proposition 8 in California while at the same time voting for Barack Obama.
... why are HRC, The New York Times, and others attempting demonize NOM simply because they have sought to marshal the black and Hispanic communities to speak out for marriage—and much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, which is in the precarious position of opposing and potentially alienating a segment of largely Democratic supporters who support marriage? Why wouldn’t NOM seek to organize, support, and encourage those groups to uphold the integrity of marriage? There is nothing sinister or underhanded about that. The question we should be asking is why the Democratic Party feels that it can ignore this significant segment of its constituency with impunity.
This weekend our longtime friend Chuck Colson passed away. NOM co-founder Prof. Robert George and Prof. Timothy George write their farewells over at The Manhattan Declaration (which Mr. Colson co-launched):
...Chuck lived the principles of the Manhattan Declaration long before it was drafted. When humbled by his own failings, Chuck was born again in Christ in 1973. Only three years later, he founded Prison Fellowship, a ministry that for more than three decades has fulfilled Christ’s command to remember the incarcerated and share the transforming love of Jesus with them and their families. “I could never, ever have left prison and accomplished what has been accomplished but for God doing it through me,” Chuck said.
In 1991 Chuck began broadcasting BreakPoint Radio, educating Christians to understand their faith as both personal trust and public witness, including the support of life, marriage and religious freedom. So he called upon all who have faith in the Lord, and indeed on all men and women of good will, to support the sanctity of life, the culture of marriage, religious freedom and the rights of conscience.
And in 2009 the Manhattan Declaration was born in the heart of Chuck Colson. You are among the now more than 525,000 persons who have committed themselves to this statement of conscience. Chuck regarded the Manhattan Declaration as a vital act of Christian obedience at this moment in history when foundational principles of our faith and culture are in jeopardy at home and abroad.
The two of us are committed to devoting our lives to carrying forth the vision and advancing the cause to which Chuck gave himself with unstinted vigor. His life stands as a testimony to God’s power to transform culture and make a difference...
New ads in North Carolina are claiming NC's Marriage Amendment will somehow interfere with domestic violence prosecutions for unmarried women. They know this is a lie. They have claimed the same thing before about, for example, Virginia's similarly worded Marriage Amendment.
In Ohio a silly judge ruled that the marriage amendment had this effect, but he was swiftly overruled by Ohio courts. 30 states have marriage amendments. In none of them were women deprived of domestic violence protection.
More evidence that our opponents know they cannot win this vote on the main question: "should marriage remain a union of husband and wife?"
