Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Posts for August, 2012

Email of the Day

Jim Burroway

August 23rd, 2012

Umm... hold on a sec...

Let’s be clear about something: the homosexual lobby and their puppet politicians’ assault on Chick-fil-A is just the beginning.

You see, wealthy homosexual activists, such as the so-called Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, are not merely threatening, bullying, and attempting to destroy a great American business—they are declaring war on anyone who disagrees with their radical agenda.

And why? To bully and intimidate the media and enough politicians and activist judges to force homosexual marriage as the law of the land—thereby destroying the time-tested, God ordained, traditional institution of marriage.

Wait a minute…. who wrote this?

Read the rest of this entry »

Dan Savage and Brian Brown’s Dinner Conversation

Jim Burroway

August 22nd, 2012

The video you’ve been waiting for has been posted online

YouTube Preview Image

T-Mobile endorses marriage equality

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2012

Today, T-Mobile USA announced the company’s endorsement of Referendum 74 by donating to, and supporting the efforts of, Washington United for Marriage, the broad, bipartisan statewide coalition working to defend the state’s marriage law.

“T-Mobile has a long-standing focus on creating an inclusive workplace environment for our employees,” said Jim Alling, interim chief executive officer and chief operating officer. “Our support of this issue is a reflection of our culture, how we do business, and our belief in the fair and equitable treatment of all employees.”

In related news, Brian Brown just declared Godzilla has risen from the sea to stomp on the T-Mobile headquarters.

Brian Brown’s MSU strategy

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2012

I’ve enjoyed poking fun at the National Organization for Marriage boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills. The absurdity of Starbucks’ customer base suddenly deciding to forgo a mocha frappuchino because Brian Brown asked them to is laughable. So far they’ve not been able to get fifty thousand signatures on their Dump Starbucks site and their Dump General Mills is only half that.

But wacky conservatives play by a funny rule book. When their boycotts achieve nothing (which is always) they just Make Sh!t Up. After hearing from the American Family Association about their Disney boycott (is it still on?), you’d think that Walt’s frozen head is somewhere weeping. And the handful of men who call themselves One Million Moms insist that they are the reason that Playboy Club and GCB were not renewed for another season.

So why shouldn’t Brian follow suit?

Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced that their protest of Starbucks is achieving results. “Starbucks supported same-sex marriage, saw their support from Republicans dwindle, missed sales projections, and watched the company lose $4.4 billion overnight and over $10 billion from their 2012 high,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “While executives of publicly traded companies have had a wonderful time claiming that not supporting same-sex marriage hurts their employee recruitment and retention efforts, we now have a case study in how alienating millions of customers can directly affect the bottom line of a public company and damage shareholder value.”

Now I’m not exactly sure what Brian means. I think he is basing this claim on the publicly traded stock value on one day (I assume August 2); but if so it makes no sense to say that the company lost $4.4 billion or that this says anything about “the bottom line”. Of course, Brian could just be so astonishingly unaware of the difference between stock trading price and financial statements that he truly thinks that a drop in stock literally means that the company lost income.

Starbucks' stock price over the past year

As for Starbucks and the boycott, well there actually is some info on how that is going. Starbucks has released their quarter three results which pretty closely cover the period since NOM started their boycott:

Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) today reported financial results for its 13-week fiscal third quarter ended July 1, 2012.

Fiscal Third Quarter 2012 Highlights:

Total net revenues increased 13% to $3.3 billion
U.S. comparable store sales increased 7%; Global comparable store sales increased 6%
Channel Development revenues increased 45% to $316 million
Operating income increased 22% to $492 million; operating margin expanded 120 basis points to 14.9%
EPS increased 19% to $0.43 per share, compared to $0.36 per share in Q3 FY11
Starbucks opened 231 net new stores globally, including its 600th store in mainland China, and its first stores in Finland and Costa Rica.

If those results reflect NOM’s boycott, maybe Lowe’s should consider renaming itself The We-Love-Gay-Marriage Company and send NOM a press release.

NOM’s Long and Profitable History of Deceit

Rob Tisinai

August 20th, 2012

When Floyd Corkins shot a guard at the Family Research Council, some people focused on the injured hero; others on the disturbed shooter. Some decried our nation’s fraying discourse; others worried over rhetoric vs. reality.

The National Organization for Marriage, it seems, is focusing on dollar $igns$. I wouldn’t begrudge them even that, if they weren’t using deception — lies, plain and simple — to con money from their supporters. I got an email from them today, containing a DONATE TODAY button. It read:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-proud civil rights group that is now nothing more than a hard-left attack machine, has also tagged the FRC with this [hate groups] epithet, and they’ve threatened to do so with NOM as well. Our hateful crime? Opposing homosexual “marriage.”

This is a lie. This is a lie. This is a lie. This is a lie. And you know what else?

This is a lie.

In late 2010, the SPLC explained it drops the “hate group” label on organizations that propagate known, scientifically discredited falsehoods:

By “known falsehoods,” we mean such things as asserting that gays and lesbians are more disposed to molesting children than heterosexuals…Nowhere in our report do we equate taking a position against same-sex marriage with hate speech.

…We analyzed in detail each of 18 organizations we cite as purveyors of anti-gay rhetoric, and determined that the activities of five of them – including the National Organization for Marriage – did not meet the above-stated hate-group criteria despite their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Also from 2010:

Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.

NOM lies. We take that for granted, but their supporters do not. And to be honest, I find this fleecing of their own somehow more disturbing than their war on us. Treating your enemies fairly is always a challenge (and they do consider us enemies — this same email refers to “gay ‘marriage’ thugs”). But to take money from your friends? That requires a complete lack of scruple.

This isn’t new. NOM’s been lying for years. Sometimes as part of a direct fundraising appeal; other times just to build up their base. Here’s a sampling:

  • NOM president Brian Brown dishonestly solicits donations by claiming that in Illinois, “government is refusing to work with Christian adoption agencies.”
  • NOM founder Maggie Gallagher dishonestly claims that she has never rested an argument “on the idea that same-sex couples harm their own children at any higher rates than any other family form.”
  • Maggie dishonestly claims that SPLC has added “a dozen or so ‘anti-gay hate groups,’ some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage.” (They’ve been pushing this falsehood for a while!).
  • Brian Brown dishonestly claims that 57% of Washington state voters oppose changing the definition of marriage (in fact, less than half expressed opposition — not quite as juicy a stat for him, but more honest).
  • Jennifer Roback Morse, NOM’s resident intellectual, dishonestly claims Judge Walker and attorneys Olsen and Boies “didn’t even mention [anti-gay precedent] Baker v Nelson”  during the Prop 8 trial.
  • NOM runs a dishonest headline: “Tell Christie to Withdraw Nomination of Pro-SSM Judge For Extremist Views Equating Christianity and Slavery” when the judge did nothing of the sort.
  • Brian Brown exploits soldiers with a fundraising email dishonestly claiming that guidelines were issued requiring naval chaplains to conduct same sex weddings (the donate button appears in the email version, not on their blog).

These are not judgment calls, not differences of opinion. These are lies. NOM lies and lies and lies, and just when you think they’re done, they lie some more.

Go ahead and share these links. Do you have friends or neighbors who support NOM? Family or colleagues? Share these links. Do you see blogs or articles or editorials claiming groups like NOM are vilified just for opposing same-sex marriage? Share these links.

And when you share, don’t forget to ask: If these groups have to lie to make their case, what kind of case could they possibly have?

NOM’s unintentional self-parody

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2012

Apparently someone didn’t take their irony supplements this morning. Because the National Organization for Marriage posted this:

“Bachelorette” star Ryan Bowers tweeted his support for Chick-fil-A and the “sanctity of marriage” on the Appreciation Day:

“Everyone is eating at chik fil-a today to support the Kathy family and their stand for the sanctity of marriage!!! Lv it!”

(For those who are not familiar with the series, Bachelorette is a television show on which a couple dozen men compete for the privilege of marrying a woman. A potential husband is eliminated each episode and drama is enhanced by showing viewers the general sleaziness and underhanded tactics of the competitors. Much of the show is reportedly scripted and edited to create a storyline.

Of the eight seasons, only the first bachelorette is currently married to the winner. Ah, sanctity.)

Dear Brian Brown: When it comes to violence and vilification, NOM is there.

Rob Tisinai

August 16th, 2012

Dear Brian Brown,

After Wednesday’s shooting at the Family Research Council, you quickly leveraged the event into a self-serving denunciation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. I can’t fault you for that. After all, in the wake of Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting, I denounced Sarah Palin for lacking the decency to take down her “target map” with its Giffords crosshairs as the Congresswoman struggled through intensive care. However…

However, you’d be more persuasive if you didn’t exploit this crime to lie about yourself and your organization.

NOMblog reports your statement:

Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a ‘hate group’ for its pro-marriage views, and less than a day ago the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement calling FRC a ‘hate group’—they even specified that FRC hosts events in Washington, DC, where today’s attack took place.

NOM has always condemned all violence and vilification connected to our ongoing national debate about the meaning and definition of marriage.

Please, Brian, this event is too important for casual deception. NOM has long, long history, not just of failing to condemn violence and vilification, but of promoting it.

  • When Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega stood on your stage as your guest at your rally and proclaimed that gays are “worthy to death,” NOM was there. But you didn’t condemn it at the event, on your website, or on your blog.
  • When Bishop Robert Evans announced gay marriage represents “the evil modern day works of Satan,” NOM was there to spread the message.
  • When Kirk Cameron called same-sex marriage a threat to civilization, NOM was there to create a video helping him spread his views and dubbing him a “champion of marriage.”
  • When Fox News asked NOM founder Maggie Gallagher about a pageant contestant who said gays “shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them,” Maggie was there, not to condemn the call for violence, but to praise “her courage in coming forward.”
  • When commenters on your own blog responded to your complaints about incendiary rhetoric by by claiming homosexuality is “a perverted act, just like pedophilia,” and saying they understand why a country like Uganda would want to punish gays with the death penalty? Maggie Gallagher was there — but to defend her own self, not to condemn violence and vilification.

NOM is there. Over and over, when gays are demonized, vilified, and threatened with violence, NOM is there. Whatever history you have of condemning such rhetoric is dwarfed by your history of sponsoring it.

The shooting at FRC was deplorable. Violence has no place in this debate. We can look at this shooting, as well as the people who are killed every year just for being gay, and agree on that. You certainly say you agree. So please, live up your own press release: stop supporting the very thing you claim to condemn.

Rob Tisinai

Just a Quick Laugh

Rob Tisinai

August 15th, 2012

The National Organization for Marriage is pushing an article in the Washington Examiner, which tells us not to put too much stock in a Maryland poll showing support for marriage equality:

Hart Research Associates recently reported a big polling shift toward support for same-sex marriage in Maryland, 54 percent to 40 percent.

Gleeful bloggers and news editors from Maryland Juice to the New York Times created celebratory headlines.

But it may be too early for media’s same-sex marriage proponents to start popping champagne corks.

Last spring, just prior to a similar vote in North Carolina, highly regarded Public Policy Polling [PPP] reported 55 percent – 41 percent in favor. Same sex marriage went down in flames there, 61 percent to 39 percent — a huge 16 point discrepancy between polling and balloting.

Wow — you mean polling had support for marriage equality at 55%, but actually voting only came to 39%? What an embarrassment…

…for the Washington Examiner. PPP’s 55% polling figure represented opposition to marriage equality. Yes, there’s still a difference when it comes to the actual vote, but there’s no “huge 16 point discrepancy.” Looks like they’ll need to find a new way of dismissing the recent Maryland poll.

Look, everyone can make a mistake. This is just a delightfully dumb one, compounded by the credulous editors at NOM who apparently don’t bother to check the accuracy of the information they pass on.

BTW — NOM is using the article to decry misleading polls, which is hypocrisy on the scale of hilarity.

NOM’s dumps are flattening out

Timothy Kincaid

July 30th, 2012

For a while it was really exciting to see just how far National Organization for Marriage’s big dumps were going to run. But now things are flattening out and fewer and fewer people are joining the NOM dump parade.

Since the 5th of July, the National Organization for Marriage has added 1,178 new signatories to its Dump Starbucks project and since the 13th an additional 861 have promised to look for alternatives to General Mills products, bringing the totals to 46,624 and 23,915 respectively. And that’s something to be proud of.

Okay, it’s not all roses and spilt coffee. Yes, we have to admit that the 40 Eagle Scouts who have returned their badges to the Boy Scouts of America (about 0.07% of all living Eagle Scouts) are about 10 times the ratio of dumpers to US General Mills customers (about 0.007%). But, by golly, we’re sure the numbers would be much higher if our Big Dump supporters were not boycotting Apple and Microsoft and their local library and the US Postal Service and the local tribe’s smoke signals and not cowering under their beds eating deep fried chicken sandwiches.


Rob Tisinai

July 18th, 2012

The National Organization for Marriage has alerted us to an egregious bullying case. It’s this:


NOM’s promoting a bizarre screed by one Anne Sorock as if it made sense. Anne writes:

Is it inclusive to introduce a highly politicized debate into a cookie’s branding, thereby opening up the opportunity to alienate a huge–if not majority–portion of your consumers? No, it is selective inclusion, a negation in terms, or as I call it, “Bully Marketing.”

I’m tempted to think this is a poe, an attempt to parody those who too easily accuse others of bullying. Or perhaps it’s a feeble attempt to hijack pro-equality language (as our opponents have tried with “bigotry” and “intolerance” and “hate”) and render it meaningless. But Anne Sorock seems to mean it in full:

…a small, relentless group of leftist activists intimidate large companies into embracing the carefully calculated leftist narrative of inclusiveness and tolerance, which really just means, promote their politics.

…what Kraft and others are doing is making the “facilitating payment” that allows them to continue to operate their storefronts. It’s the money in the envelope that allows them to be left them alone–for now.

And then she directs readers to the US government’s anti-bullying site.  So once again, but this time as a question: Seriously?

I wonder if she imagines a late-night scene in a underground parking lot, with the Kraft Foods CEO cornered by a half a dozen menacing gay activists, all of them chanting, “Make the cookie! Make the cookie! MAKE THE COOKIE!!!” Until the poor CEO weeps a bit, falls to the ground, and gives in.

So listen, all you anti-marriage folk. I know you’re upset that you’re losing in court. You’re demoralized that state legislatures are turning against you. You’re seriously freaked out that voter referendums are no longer an automatic win. I know that your next strategy is set up a legal case that marriage equality threatens your most basic Constitutional liberties. But (last time) seriously, if you want the nation’s great undecided middle to accept your claims of intimidation and persecution, you might want to invoke something more terrifying than a $70 billion company extorted into releasing picture of a cookie.


NOM’s breakfast dump heaps up

Timothy Kincaid

July 17th, 2012

It’s been a week since I brought you the exciting news of how the National Organization for Marriage’s big Dump General Mills project just keeps going on and on. And in that time the number of those dedicated souls who vow that they will “look for substitutes” has grown by a colossal 18%, all the way to 23,054.

Much of the growth can be attributed to support by the American Family Association, whose followers number at least ten thousand. And one thing you can say about the AFA supporters, when it comes to the cause of protecting the family from the militant homosexual lobby, they are committed. Or, at least, if they are not yet committed, they certainly should be.

NOM’s General Mills protest is now a giant “dump”

Timothy Kincaid

July 10th, 2012

OneNewsNow, the American Family Association’s project to bring us the news that the mainstream press ignores (including all sorts or facts, numbers, studies, reports, quotes, and all sorts of information that you can’t find anywhere else) has finally taken notice of the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of General Mills. And today they are sharing with America’s families that “General Mills earns spot on boycott list”.

And as a result, the listing of those who pledge to “look for substitutes” to General Mills brands has soared to new heights. Currently at 19,555 signatories on the page – a full 398 more than it was on the 5th – it seems almost certain that this dump will pass 20,000 and become truly a giant dump, and as I’m sure we all know, it’s hard to ignore a giant dump.

Dear Diary: A Fact Checker at NOM

Rob Tisinai

July 9th, 2012

This excerpt from the diary of a NOM fact checker has somehow fallen into my hands. I cannot vouch for its authenticity.

Dear Diary,

This morning I was trying to use a decorative letter opener to cut the despair out of my soul when a NOM staffer dropped off a blog entry for me to fact check. “Make sure it’s accurate,” he said. He must be new.

He’d been told to write about our Starbucks boycott. I’d forgotten there were jobs here worse than mine. Starbucks stock shot up after we announced the boycott, but his article claimed the price has fallen lately, and after more than two months it’s finally a smidge below where we started.

Hooray, apparently. God, the desperation around here is so thick they should spread it on white bread and serve it with tea.

Anyway, I checked the stock price — OMG! it had dipped a bit, then risen, but then dipped again, most recently since about June 20.  So this was…correct?

Oh, why couldn’t I have just stopped there. I could have been the hero, could have announced, Hey everyone, we’re saying something TRUE, could have been included in the alcohol-free celebratory sniffing of white-board markers. Read the rest of this entry »

Nearly $M last month for marriage

Timothy Kincaid

July 9th, 2012

Seattle Times

Supporters of gay marriage in Washington state said Monday that they raised more than $952,000 last month for the campaign to uphold the state’s new law, which is currently on hold pending the outcome of a November ballot measure.

But that’s just last month

As of Monday, Washington United for Marriage said it had raised more than $2 million for the campaign to fight back attempts to overturn the law. Preserve Marriage Washington, which collected the signatures to get R-74 on the ballot, has raised more than $135,000, according to the most recent numbers with the Public Disclosure Commission, though it hasn’t yet submitted its totals for June.

The Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage, which was involved in ballot measures that overturned same-sex marriage in California and Maine, has said it will fight to strike down the law, and has loaned regional coordinator Christopher Plante to the local campaign.

“We expect to be outspent on this,” said Plante, who is now serving as deputy campaign manager for Preserve Marriage.

Ya think?

NOM’s big dump update

Timothy Kincaid

July 5th, 2012

Few things are as exciting as clicking over to the Dump Starbucks and Dump General Mills pages to see just how many new signatures the National Organization for Marriage has racked up. Since our last report,

Dump General Mills now has 18,157 pledges to “look for substitutes” to General Mills brands. That’s up a whopping 154 people from just Tuesday. If this were a petition to get Sheriff Andy to let Opie join the baseball team, that would be astounding.

Dump Starbucks has 45,446 signatories, up 104 signatures since the 2nd. As this is an older boycott, the numbers are starting to level out and probably won’t get above 50,000 before the effort is removed from the web and everyone pretends it didn’t happen.

In comparison, 62,630 people signed a petition to get a Virginia athletic club to allow same-sex couples to register for family access to a swimming pool, and 269,884 people signed a petition to ask Citibank and Barclays to publicly condemn Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. I don’t believe that either of these efforts got press attention or frantic emails sent out to ‘concerned citizens’.

I don’t just comment on NOM’s abysmal PR failures to mock them. I do so because it is important that media and legislators begin to understand that behind their hype and pretense is no substance.

If our community wanted to head up a campaign to boycott Starbucks “because they serve overpriced crappy coffee”, it would take little effort to find tons of people who don’t like Starbucks. But NOM’s moral franticness and hectic histrionic ‘protection of a sacred rite’ can barely scrape together half a hundred thousand. People just don’t support them. They just don’t care.

We may continue for a few more years to lose votes and polls. But the fire is gone, the passion is gone, and only a tiny fragment of the population is sufficiently opposed to marriage equality to type in their name in an online list.

Exciting dump update

Timothy Kincaid

July 3rd, 2012

The National Organization for Marriage’s big dump just keeps growing. Today the number of people who have pledged to look for substitutes for General Mills brands has shot up to 18,003. That’s an increase of 239 people in just one day!

If it keeps up at this rate, by September the NOM dump will be at nearly one hundredth of one percent of the population. And that, my friends, will make General Mills sit up and take notice.

And let’s not forget that this exciting development represents at least 18,000 people nation wide who care enough about this issue to type their name. And that sort of activism can translate to literally dozens of protesters. Truly this grass roots endeavor eclipses even 2010′s Tour of Mostly Empty City Plazas.

NOM’s takes ‘dump’ nationwide

Timothy Kincaid

July 2nd, 2012

The National Organization for Marriage has exciting news about their very successful “dump” campaigns. Although it may have about 20,000 stores, Starbucks will soon be feeling the bite of NOM’s reach and influence. In addition to the 45,342 people who have pledged not to buy Starbucks are the grandchildren and bingo partners of these dedicated souls who will not receive Starbucks giftcards this Christmas. And with press coverage in many newspapers and Sunday inserts, their dump efforts have gotten tremendous visibility.

In a move that is certain to severely cut into the profits of Starbucks, NOM has announced an alternative to the ubiquitous coffee house: Jitters and Bliss coffee. Now when you feel an urge for a caramel macchiato, instead of dropping in to a Starbuck you can instead go online and order a tin of coffee (comparably priced to Starbucks), wait for it to be delivered (shipping free with $50 purchase), brew it up, and enjoy a delicious cup of coffee free from the guilt of supporting the homosexual agenda. And best of all, that cup of coffee will taste twice as blissful after a week or two of no-caffeine jitters.

More recently, NOM is now charging at the front of a vast cavalcade of boycotters who have vowed to go without General Mills products. That’s right, no Haagen-Dazs, Pillsbury, or Green Giant for them. (Star Tribune)

Minnesota for Marriage leaders are heading into the summer months with a dogged focus on keeping supporters energized and pushing back hard if other Minnesota businesses surface to oppose the amendment.

When General Mills stepped into the fray, Minnesota for Marriage immediately issued news releases that said “the Green Giant, Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Kix and Trix have all declared war on Marriage” and that the company was promoting “genderless marriage.”

Angela Beeney of Plymouth and 4-year-old Ivy Brandon of Hastings, in foreground, dropped off General Mills products in Golden Valley to protest the company’s opposition to the marriage amendment. - Star Tribune

Not limiting itself to Minnesota, NOM now has 17,764 signatures on the pledge (up from 14,714 on the 28th) and the Fortune 500 company is no doubt seriously regretting its decision to pander to same-sex marriage activists and support that radical social agenda. These true marriage defenders have sworn to ‘look for alternatives’ to the General Mills products, whenever convenient and economically feasible (families are hurting in this Obamaconomy). And although more than 80,000 have signed a petition thanking General Mills for their position, it is strongly suspected that some of those signers are not traditional families anyway, and are not really the food company’s target market.

And the campaign is growing daily. With more and more businesses pledging their endorsement of immorality, NOM has an ever increasing opportunity to stand for righteousness. In fact, just today NOM has been apprised of an opportunity that cannot be missed. Finally, NOM has irrefutable evidence that Microsoft’s profits fund the radical redefinition of marriage. (Seattle Times)

Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer and co-founder Bill Gates have each donated $100,000 to the campaign supporting the state’s new gay marriage law, which faces a referendum vote in November.

Zach Silk, campaign manager for Washington United for Marriage, said Monday that the checks were cut Friday and are being reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission on Monday afternoon.

“It’s going to make a tremendous difference,” Silk said. “It’s very important for us to have that broad support from business leaders and companies themselves.”

We are confident that NOM will soon announce a full-on boycott of all of Microsoft’s products. But they will not be reactionary – recognizing that Apple gave money to oppose Proposition 8, NOM will boldly stand against these both of these two empires of evil and cease using any products or software from either of these companies.

Perhaps as early as today. Or tomorrow. Or maybe next week (strategery takes time), next month, or the second Tuesday in August of 2028. But definitely sometime very very soon they will stand up and show Microsoft and Apple just what happens when you dare to stand against those who fight for marriage, family, and blind obedience to Catholic teaching.

Thanks, NOM, for the corporate support

Timothy Kincaid

June 15th, 2012

I knew it would happen.

Last week, the National Organization for Marriage (but not yours) sent out a vaguely threatening letter to the 50 largest corporations in Minnesota demanding that they “stay neutral” on the upcoming vote to constitutionally ban their employees from being treated equally. And if there is one thing which is now pretty much guaranteed to generate corporate support for marriage equality, it’s telling them that they can’t.

Among the largest corporations headquarted in Minnesota are United Healthgroup, Target, Best Buy, Supervalu, 3M, U.S. Bancorp, Medtronic, and General Mills. So you know that it was going to be no time at all before someone on this list – if not all of them – said, “What’s that? Gay marriage? Oh, yeah, we support that.”

General Mills (makers of cheerios) was the first. (StarTrib)

Chief executive Ken Powell voiced the company’s opposition [to the anti-marriage amendment] Wednesday at a General Mills function attended by 400 gay and lesbian professionals, followed Thursday by a Web letter from the company’s vice president for global diversity and inclusion, Ken Charles.

“We do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy,” Charles wrote. “We value diversity. We value inclusion.”

(And, while he was at it, he thought he’d mention how proud he was to testify in favor of ENDA)

Target hasn’t yet taken an official stance on the amendment, but they featured a gay themed t-shirt line on their website and donated the proceeds ($120,000) to Family Equality Council which supports, well, family equality.

So now I’m stuck. I’m going to have to buy breakfast cereal, and I don’t even eat breakfast cereal.

I wonder… can I pick up Cheerios at Target while I’m on my way to JCPenney to buy Levis?

Brian Brown Accepts

Jim Burroway

May 29th, 2012

From the NOM Blog:

Dan — I accept and will look forward to debating you at your dining room table. As I said in my challenge to you, anytime, any place.

While I appreciate the invitation that you have extended to my wife, she will not be able to attend. She is a full-time mom with seven beautiful children and an eighth on the way.

Dan Savage invited National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown to a debate at Dan Savage’s dining table, with the New York Times’s Mark Oppenheimer serving as moderator. The original invitation included having Brown’s wife and Dan’s husband also at the table. A date and time will be announced later, giving Savage time to redecorate his living room and dining room for the occasion.

This, I Did Not Expect

Rob Tisinai

May 25th, 2012

A couple years ago, before I was blogging at Box Turtle, a man showed up at a National Organization for Marriage rally, carrying this sign:

In a decidedly emotional reaction, I redesigned NOM’s logo to reflect the sentiment:

I expected some controversy, and when my head settled I offered a more considered analysis of the situation (though NOM’s later dishonesty relieved my fear that I’d treated them unfairly).

However, I discovered something today that I did not expect: An antigay Facebook page has taken the image for its cover photo:

Click to enlarge

Facebook will probably kill the page, but you can see a screen grab of it here.

Let me issue the usual caveats:

  • You can’t judge our opponents by a few of their fringe members (the source of my misgivings about my own graphic, which I explored in the more considered evaluation linked to above)
  • The page itself may be nothing more than a nasty and stupid joke.
  • And in any case, it’s a tiny group — barely more than 40 people who work with, go to school with, or live next to gays and want to kill them.

Even so, this development stunned me. You really can’t parody some of these folks. I know that, but being confronted with it still astonishes me.

And in case you’re wondering, I won’t demand that they stop using my image. If I can help them damage their cause — help expose them as a group of murderous bigots with whom no decent person would associate — then I say huzzah!

Newer Posts | Older Posts