Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Equality round-up, March 31, 2012


By Adam Bink

A few things around and about:

  • Another great video from the folks at the You Can Play Project. Attention to the NHL is particularly high right now as playoffs are only a few games away (and my Sabres are on the cusp of squeaking in):

  • NOM’s Starbucks boycott appears to be yet another #FAIL (just like their Summer for Marriage tour and Vota Tus Valores tour). Although spokespeople are supposed to say “we’ve seen no effect,” my favorite part is this at a recent shareholder meeting (Schulz runs the company):

“I would assure you that the senior team of Starbucks discussed this, and it was, to be candid with you, not something that was a difficult decision for us,” Schultz said to a burst of applause from the stock-holding crowd. “We made that decision in our view through the lens of humanity and being the kind of company that embraces diversity.”

When pressed by another NOM spokesman whether it is “prudent to risk the economic interest” of the company to support gay marriage, Schultz remained unfazed. He explained that Starbucks employs 200,000 people—with the obvious subtext that the number includes lots of gay people.

  • Just an amazing response to our moneybomb fundraiser to help fully fund the campaign to defeat Amendment One in North Carolina. If you glance to the top right of P8TT, you’ll see (as of this post) $14,271 in from 424 Courage members and P8TT readers. Just outstanding! Thank you so much to everyone who dug deep. The moneybomb raised over $50,000 this week on ActBlue, another $32,000 through the website, plus additional support from large donors who called in to push the campaign over the $1 million mark raised. Remember, both Tom Jensen at Public Policy Poling and Celinda Lake, the respected pollster, said a fully funded campaign can beat Amendment One. We still have a ways to go, though. If you haven’t chipped in, consider packing your lunch next week and throw in $5, $10 or $15 to help get the campaign’s first ads up on the air. Children and families are depending on it, and early voting starts on April 19. Meanwhile, Courage will be rolling out our member-to-voter contact program next week and organizing GOTV.
  • Need more convincing? Check out P8TT friend Karen Ocamb on how we can win and how a win will change the movement.
  • If you missed Scottie’s breaking post last night, House Republicans vote to intervene in yet another DOMA case.
  • Via Sagesse in Quick Hits, Maggie Gallagher steps back from the NOM memo, saying it made them sound “too big for our britches.”
  • Next week (April 4) is a big hearing on the Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS cases in the 1st Circuit in Boston, and we’ll have preview and day-of coverage here at P8TT. You can get started with this piece by Jacob here. Mary Bonauto will be arguing on behalf of GLAD and Maura Healey for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

What else are you reading this weekend?


  • 1. Kate  |  March 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    BRYCE K — I hope you read this site. I want to tell you that I am really ticked off the way Resist on the NOMblog is treating you. I tried to post that there, but I'm banned from posting anything. People who are that hung up on another's person's "youth" are clearly not very far away from that same age themselves and are very insecure about their maturity or lack thereof.. Age is not what counts; it's intelligence that counts. And you have that TONS more than he or any of the other regular posters there have. Don't let him get to you. That's how he'll feel he wins.

  • 2. Kate  |  March 31, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Besides, I love seeing how your brain works. No wonder he's threatened! Keep up the good work.

  • 3. Kate  |  March 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    He definitely gives the impression that he is attracted to you and is trying desperately to "resist"……… I'm sure even his NOMbie pals have noticed that.

  • 4. Rich  |  April 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Kate, you are absolutely correct. I would have to dig deep to find another poster on the NOM site as immature and troubled as ResistSSM. Just think about it, an adult man, fighting SSAttraction all his life, married to a women and with kids….spending his days attacking a young man and, almost worse, throwing off shrill and juvenile barbs. Psychologists would have a field day with this one.

    Bryce, go for it. But, on some level all of us must be saddened for ResistSSA and his inner turmoil and struggles and, in truth, we could consider him a victim of his own self-hatred. As a young, intelligent and secure male, you can engage him in back and forth. Just remember, you seem to know who you are, ResistSSA is clearly still grasping to find out.

  • 5. Bob Barnes  |  April 2, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Rich, I think ResistSSM is a fake. In fact by the grammar, sentence structure, word choice, tone and texture, I'd swear at least six of the NOM regulars are from one or two people. Another give-away is the way a few people are trying to represent a cross-section of America. You've got a fake ex-gay, a fake conservative Jew, a fake Democrat and a fake Atheist.

    People who do exist are Wayne (Cooper), Ash (Ashly J. Morris) and Rick Delano. BTW, on Facebook, Rick Delano had several fakes accounts and was know for multiple postings to a topic.

  • 6. Yellow Dwarf  |  April 2, 2012 at 8:06 am

    Who's the fake Atheist? If you mean the nutcase Louis E., he's already been sighted years ago elsewhere on the net. May or may not be fake, but probably not of NOM's making.

  • 7. Rich  |  April 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    On another matter…Kate brings up something Interesting. Let's see if this works. She and I appear to have been permanently barred from posting on NOM ( a rare post will slip through, but often deleted later). So the question of the hour is: How many of you have been effectively barred from posting on NOM? Let's see how many of us don't get to offer them a dose of reality.

    So far: 2 (Kate and I)

  • 8. Bob Barnes  |  April 2, 2012 at 7:25 am

    Me and three of my friends.

  • 9. Sheryl_Carver  |  April 2, 2012 at 8:32 am

    it varies for me. Sometimes I can't get even 1 innocuous comment to post, other times 1 or 2 will get through, rarely more. The algorithm their moderator/censor uses is as irrational as they are. Or as I think Kate mentioned once, it's a real person who goes out for coffee from time to time & then the free-for-all erupts.

  • 10. Mark Mead-Brewer  |  April 2, 2012 at 9:08 am

    I haven't been able to post on there in months and months

  • 11. Chrys  |  April 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    I can't contribute to the discussion about the NOM page – I won't go there! But I can say that I almost never go to Starbucks (I don't drink coffee), but on a trip this weekend I made a point to get hot chocolate there three times. Because of their support of marriage equality. They may be seeing a positive effect of NOM's "boycott" as it backfires.

  • 12. dwpiper  |  April 2, 2012 at 8:00 am

    This may be off-topic, but I have a question about the timing for a decision on whether the 9th Circuit will grant an en banc rehearing. Looking at the 9th Circuit Rules, there's this:

    "If a petition for rehearing en banc has been made, any judge may, within 21 days from receipt of the en banc petition, request the panel to make known its recommendation as to en banc consideration. Upon receipt of the panel's recommendation, any judge has 14 days to call for en banc consideration, whereupon a vote will be taken. If no judge requests or gives notice of an intention to request en banc consideration within 21 days of the receipt of the en banc petition, the panel will enter an order denying rehearing and rejecting the petition for rehearing en banc."

    If I'm reading that correctly, the fact that we haven't already heard that the petition for en banc rehearing has been denied is proof that at least one active judge has called for it to be granted, and we're all just waiting for the final vote count. Is that correct?

  • 13. Bill S.  |  April 2, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Yes. O'Scannlain was most likely the judge who called for the vote. He is very conservative and known for being anti-gay.

  • 14. Seth from Maryland  |  April 2, 2012 at 9:56 am

    so is there any idea of a timeline of when we will know the vote results of the judges?

  • 15. dwpiper  |  April 2, 2012 at 10:29 am

    I can't seem to find anything in the 9th Circuit Rules limiting how long they have to vote. Maybe someone else has that information?

  • 16. Volunteer Abroad  |  May 9, 2012 at 3:09 am

    It would take atleast 4 months, I guess?

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!