NOM's Brian Brown: Florida Should Ignore Gay Marriage Ruling

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), has called on Florida officials to ignore a federal judge's ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.

On Tuesday, gay couples throughout Florida began exchanging vows as it became the 36th state where gay couples can marry.

Brown called the ruling – whose implementation the Supreme Court refused to stop – “illegitimate.” and called on officials to turn away gay couples wishing to marry.

“It is simply illegitimate for the opinion of a federal district judge to trump the decision of millions of Floridians and attempt to redefine marriage in violation of Federal law,” Brown said in a blog post. “Federal judges are acting as if the US Supreme Court has ordered same-sex marriage to be imposed, but in reality the Court has ruled that states have the right to define marriage. We demand that the US Supreme Court act immediately to review the pending marriage case before them and swiftly reaffirm that states have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The US Supreme Court has never ruled that traditional marriage is unconstitutional. In fact, they have specifically ruled that states have the right to define marriage.”

“It is a travesty of justice that states are allowing federal judges to single-handedly decide the laws of marriage. Florida officials should not go along with this illegitimate decree and should demand that state and local officials continue to enforce the marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2008,” he added.

When a Homophobic Group Asked for Stories of Strong Marriages, These Gay Couples Were Happy to Oblige

The National Organization for Marriage, one of the most visible and insistent antigay marriage groups in the country, really should have known better when it put out a call on Facebook asking people to tag and describe “a couple in your life who have a strong, lasting marriage that inspires you” and to include the hashtag #1m1w, “meaning one man, one woman.”

NOM was expecting responses describing how marriages between a man and a woman are superior to same-sex unions, but what it got were cute shout-outs to and from gay couples.

So @NOMupdate asked for inspiring marriage stories. Bet some of you have a few to share :) http://t.co/roXv2Xgtx3 #1m1w #equality
— Justin McLachlan (@justinmclachlan) December 10, 2014

The thread is still going, and while it’s not the most civil discussion on social media, most of the top comments are sweet stories of gay and lesbian romance.

NOM IS NEAR DEATH: HRC REPORTS LACK OF FUNDING AND SUPPORT CRIPPLING THE ORGANIZATION

The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release today that contained results from a study they conducted on the National Organization for Marriage's funding and found the organization is rapidly losing support. HRC examined NOM's tax filings from 2013 and found that the organization's funding for the year dropped a whopping 50 percent from 2012, raising only $5.1 million in funds this year. Only two donors account for donating half of those funds alone, which indicates NOM's support base merely consists of a very few wealthy people and a minuscule amount of the general public.

The NOM Education Fund also dropped nearly $3.5 million in funding; a drop of almost 70 percent since the previous year. NOM ended the year more than $2.5 million in debt. Fred Sainz, the HRC Vice President of Communications, urges NOM to give up the ghost already.

Said Sainz:

“If I were Brian Brown, I’d be worried that my two or three mega-donors are soon going to come to terms with the fact that they’d largely be better off flushing money down the toilet. Americans certainly aren’t buying what NOM is selling, and it’s only a matter of time before the trickle of money keeping the lights on at NOM HQ dries up.”

NOM fought to keep their 2013 990s secret however, HRC made an in-person request for the public financial documents on Monday morning and again Tuesday – in both instances, NOM didn't produce the documents. Federal law requires organizations to publicly release their 990s the same day an in-person request is made. HRC filed a complaint with the IRS in order to force NOM to abide by the law. 

Within the last year NOM suffered crippling blows to its core purpose and mission with the number of states allowing gay marriage jumping from 15 to 33 states, with 62 percent of the nation's population living in states that allow same-sex marriage. Both Democratic and Republican appointed judges are striking down marriage bans and the Supreme Court of the United States judges decreed that federal court rulings granting marriage rights to same-sex couples to become the law of the land in 11 states in the last two years: California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Recent poll results show that NOM’s radical and exclusionary brand of anti-LGBT rhetoric is falling on deaf ears. An HRC survey of 1,200 registered voters conducted June 6-10 this year by Republican pollster Alex Lundry of TargetPoint Consulting, found that the number of Americans strongly opposed to national marriage equality dropped to 28 percent. Of the people polled, only three percent would challenge the Supreme Court of the United States judges if they struck down marriage bans across the country.

NOM President Brian Brown, realizing his organization is becoming obsolete in the states, took his rhetoric to Russia to support a bill – now law – banning the adoption of Russian children by same-sex couples or parents living in countries where marriage equality is legal. Although Brown would experience success in Russia, NOM's death knell is ringing loud and clear here in the states, but the organization continues to shuffle on like an undead zombie; aimless and spouting incoherent nonsense.

NOM: We're Super-Boycotting Starbucks

"The pro-same-sex marriage corporate behemoth Starbucks has taken its ideologically-driven LGBT agenda to a new level with a new ad featuring two reality TV star drag queens. The ad feature Bianca Del Rio and Adore Delano, two drag queens from a reality TV show on the LGBT network, OUTtv. Thus Starbucks continues to serve up a healthy dose of ideology added in with the cream and sugar in its cups of coffee. It's as good a reason as ever to Dump Starbucks if you haven't made the commitment to do so already." - From an unsigned post on NOM's blog. The post links to their boycott page, which after three years shows a measly 70K signatures, which is about as many Starbucks customers served every single day just in the company's hometown of Seattle. (Each Starbucks serves about 500 customers a day and there are currently about 140 stores in Seattle.)

The National Organization for Marriage Just Threw Away $117,000

Frankly, we’re surprised to learn that the National Organization for Marriage even has $117,000 left to throw away on anything. But the facts are these: NOM just gave a huge chunk of cash to support the election of Thom Tillis, a bigot from North Carolina.

Tillis was largely responsible for NC’s now-overturned marriage ban. He’s currently a member of the state House of Representatives, and he’s running for Senate. (The election’s on Tuesday! Tell your friends in NC to vote, and remind them that Kay Hagan supports the freedom to marry!)

Why are we so sure that this money is a waste? Well, even if Tillis wins his election, NOM still doesn’t get anything out of it. Oh sure, their friend gets to hang onto power; and they’ll have defeated a nice lady who believes that gays should be treated equally. But they still won’t be able to stop marriage.

Look, NOM, North Carolina’s marriage ban is gone. For good. It’s over. It’s unconstitutional, the Attorney General hasn’t been willing to defend it since this summer, and no one is going to be able to halt the weddings now that they’ve started. You’re not going to be able to pull a Prop 8 here, since federal courts have already determined that banning marriage for gays is unconstitutional.

We’re used to NOM wasting money on long-shot court cases that they can’t possibly win, like in Oregon. But there’s something particularly pathetic about them wasting money in states where they’ve conclusively lost.

Of course, it’s their money, so they’re free to waste it however they want. We just wouldn’t want to have to explain any of this to their donors.

Brian Brown Vs Evan Wolfson

Last weekend Freedom To Marry head Evan Wolfson faced down hate group leader Brian Brown in an hour-long call-in show on C-SPAN. After you wade through Brown's opening bloviation, you'll get to a great statement by Wolfson.

UPDATE: OMG, the caller at 12:45.

UPDATE II: The caller at 29:30 is wonderful.

UPDATE III: At 43:00 Wolfson nails Brown on being at that anti-gay Kremlin conference.

Wolfson: "Mr. Brown was in Russia, people can go and look it up, for something called the World Conference [Congress] Of Families, that endorsed a resolution calling on other countries to adopt the same kind of vicious, brutal, sweeping anti-gay law that Putin's Russia just enacted that has launched a wave of thuggery and beatings in the street and discrimination against gay people in that country that is now seeking to export that kind of attack. That's not about marriage. That's about beating up and in some cases killing and licensing thuggery. Mr. Brown was part of that conference and that's part of the work he is doing."

Brown: "That's absolutely wrong."

Wolfson: "People can look it up. "

Brown: "His facts are absolutely wrong. All people can look up are Evan Wolfson's and Human Rights Campaign's absolute lies and slurs."

BOOM. That's EXACTLY what EVERY activist who debates Brian Brown should being saying. Huge props to Evan Wolfson

North Carolina GOP leaders hire NOM chairman to help block gay marriages

As same-sex couples in North Carolina await federal court rulings they hope will allow them to get married, Republican legislative leaders made a last-minute move Thursday to block or delay the nuptials.

AP

John Eastman

House Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate leader Phil Berger filed a motion seeking to intervene in legal challenges to the state’s gay marriage ban approved by voters in 2012. They also asked for a one-week delay to file additional documents.

The GOP legislators have hired California lawyer John C. Eastman, chairman of the conservative National Organization for Marriage.

Berger spokeswoman Shelly Carver said Eastman has agreed to forgo his first $10,000 in legal fees. After that, he will be paid $400 an hour.

American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina legal director Chris Brook criticized the move as a waste of taxpayer funds.

“The legislature has had more than a year to intervene in this matter if they felt their interests were not adequately represented, and failed to do so,” said Brook, who represents nine same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry and adopt children. “The result here is no longer in doubt. … The legislature should quit playing politics by seeking to defend the indefensible.”

Tillis, who is running for U.S. Senate, said in a debate earlier this week he felt obligated to defend the will of North Carolina voters against “liberal activist judges” appointed by President Barack Obama.

The recent rulings striking down gay marriage bans across the nation as unconstitutional have been handed down by federal judges appointed by presidents from both parties. While North Carolina’s prohibition remains popular with religiously conservative voters, recent polls show increasing support and acceptance for same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen Jr. in Greensboro, an appointee of President George W. Bush, appears ready to strike down North Carolina’s ban after issuing an order Wednesday lifting his stays and dismissing all motions in the two cases he oversees. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, ended the state’s defense of the ban after concluding all possible legal defenses have been exhausted.

The ACLU filed a request seeking a quick ruling after the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it would not hear appeals to lower court rulings striking down similar marriage bans in other states. Osteen has delayed making a decision since July, when Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban was struck down by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. That court has jurisdiction over North Carolina and its decision is binding on Osteen.

In a third challenge filed by members of the clergy seeking to marry gay couples, U.S. District Judge Martin Reidinger in Asheville removed himself from the case Thursday, transferring it to District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr.

Tillis and Berger plan to file a motion to intervene in that case, as well.

“This threatened eleventh hour effort to intervene is strange, to say the least,” said Jake Sussman, a Charlotte lawyer representing the religious groups. “We are close to the end of this litigation and ready to banish Amendment One to the dustpan of history. We believe this is an unnecessary use of taxpayer money and judicial resources and seeks only to delay the inevitable”.

Tillis and Berger are currently not party to any of the lawsuits. They will need to file motions with Osteen and Cogburn seeking to intervene, while the judges would have to rule to give them standing.

Sussman and Brook said they will oppose efforts by Tillis and Berger to intervene.

Brian Brown: I'm Proud To Be A Hater

"I readily and proudly plead guilty to the 'crime' of not supporting [the HRC's] desire to redefine marriage. I have had the nerve to express that view not only here in America, but when invited to speak in other countries. Hence, in the distorted world of the campaign, I am an extremist and 'export hate.' I am proud to have played some small role in this emerging global movement. One of the few things the Human Rights Campaign correctly notes is that I have spoken to conferences around the world. However, these speeches focused not on 'hate' or 'division' but on the importance of individuals of different faiths, nationalities, cultures and political creeds uniting together in a shared defense of the truth of marriage and family. Working together with men and women dedicated to protecting the family is not the definition of hate, but love." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, who last month appeared at a Kremlin conference which concluded with a call for more nations to criminalize homosexuality.

New Charges Filed Against National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in California

The nation’s most virulently anti-LGBT political organization, the Washington, DC based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has run afoul of election laws from Hawaii to Maine. Now it appears they have once again broken state law during their ill-fated attempt to quality a referendum in California earlier this year.

NOM antagonist, Fred Karger, president of Rights Equal Rights, today filed a 35 page sworn complaint against Brian Brown and his NOM with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the state’s campaign ethics enforcement agency.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL COMPLAINT

Maggie Gallagher: Marriage Poll Dropped Because Of Phil Robertson & Brandon Eich

According to Maggie Gallagher, the recent five-point drop in marriage equality polling can be sourced to public outrage over the treatment of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and former Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich. She writes at National Review:

Salon may be right — this polling result may well be temporary or an outlier. But if my analysis is right, the future depends on two things: whether gay-marriage advocates continue to press the idea that supporters of the Christian and traditional understanding of marriage should be treated as bigots in the public square — and whether stories of the oppression of opponents of gay marriage “break through” the media blockade. That will in turn depend in part on whether political champions of supporters of classic marriage emerge to make oppression visible. I am not necessarily either optimistic or pessimistic, but I would say this: In previous articles and essays I have discussed the political effects of the GOP’s decision to silence itself on so-called “social issues.” If your goal is simply winning elections, this mute strategy, while I think it demonstrably unwise, could be arguable. What is not arguable is that if you are one of the people who actually care about these issues — for whom protecting life, marriage, and religious liberty is not a political strategy but a reason for being in politics — the candidates’ silence will hurt your cause. You donate to or otherwise support candidates who adopt a mute strategy at your own peril. In a culture war, the single most effective thing you can do is persuade your opponents to stop talking. When only one side speaks, the polls will move, and its victory will become inevitable.

Anti-Gay Groups Launch 'Unprecedented' Campaign Against Pro-LGBT Republican Candidates

Anti-gay activist groups The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Family Research Council Action and CitizenLink are launching “an unprecedented campaign” against three Republican candidates because of their support for marriage equality and abortion, reports Buzzfeed.

Family Research Council Action is the legislative arm of rabidly homophobic listed hate group Family Research Council.

Last month, NOM cofounder Robert George said that he couldn't think of any "logical stopping place" between gay-affirming Christians and pedophile-affirming or serial killer-affirming Christians.

The three ultra-conservative groups “will mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots” for Republican House candidates Carl DeMaio [top left] in California, Richard Tisei [middle] in Massachusetts and Republican Senate candidate Monica Wehby [right] in Oregon. DeMaio and Tisei are the only out LGBT Republican federal candidates from the to appear on the ballot this fall.

A letter - claiming to speak on behalf of all Americans and possibly suggesting a gay recruitment drive - sent to Republican congressional and campaign leaders yesterday reads in part:

Brian Brown: SCOTUS Will Totally Rule Against Gay Marriage Because Louisiana

"Oh, you didn’t hear much about the Louisiana decision? No surprise. Here’s what happened. U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, following extensive briefing and argument, ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the state of Louisiana from defining marriage solely as one man and one woman, nor refusing to recognize so-called same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. He found that the state had several valid reasons for having adopted this position, which was approved by 78 percent of its voters. One reason, Feldman wrote, was to encourage children to be raised by their mother and father in an intact family. Another was to ensure that any change in such a foundational issue as marriage should only be considered via the democratic process and not be judicially imposed. [snip] We’re probably 10 months away from the Supreme Court issuing a definitive ruling on whether defining marriage in state law solely as the union of one man and one woman violates the Constitution. When that ruling comes, many people will once again be shocked that the 'inevitable' didn’t happen because they hadn't heard much about Feldman and his prescient ruling in Louisiana." 

- Hate group leader Brian Brown, writing for US News & World Report.

NOM Leader Jennifer Roback-Morse Believes Marriage Equality Will Go Nationwide Within the Year

Jennifer Roback-Morse, who has long been a mouthpiece for the National Organization for Marriage and currently serves as president of NOM offshoot Ruth Institute, is putting marriage equality on the fast track - predicting that the issue will be solved within the legal system within the year. 

The Advocate reports that Morse told the National Catholic Singles' Conference earlier this month that she wanted to "go on the record" about "what is going to happen as we move along the path of redefining marriage." 

"We're here, in 2014, talking about the redefinition of marriage. I'm going to go on the record here, and forecast, that by this time next year, it'll be over, as a legal matter," Morse continues. "There will be same-sex, genderless marriage in every state in the union."

Morse went on to apologize to any Texans in the room, telling them that they "are not going to be able to hold out" on maintaining discriminatory marriage laws.

Luckily, Morse and any anti-gay bigots in the audience can find solace knowing that the majority of Utah (and Maggie Gallagher) stand with them in continuing to oppose marriage equality while still accepting its inevitability.

Maggie Gallagher's reliable sleight of hand

It was a few months after she helped pass the discriminatory Proposition 8, roll back equality in California, and write marriage discrimination into the Golden State's constitution that I first heard Maggie Gallagher go on in length about how she was the supposed victim of the same-sex marriage fight. "They're going to call us bigots," was the gist of her fearful claim. Listen to that speech here; and a response to it here.

What struck me at the time, and what continued to strike me in the subsequent years in which she and her movement adopted this "victims" meme writ large, was the way Maggie stripped the concept of merit (or lack thereof) out of the situation altogether. Not only would she pretend that hers was simply a cause to "protect marriage," the purposely installed defense system behind which anti-equality conservatives have long been hiding, but she would also fully exclude the very real pain and practical repercussions that citizens who are in, or who might someday want to be in, a same-sex civil marriage experience as direct result of her chosen line of work. It was always as if she was simply selling daisies on the side of the road, and those of us who challenge Maggie's cause were simply out to get her. It was like we had nothing better to do with our time so we thought we'd just go after this "innocent" writer and her views.

Fast forward to the year 2014, and we find the same Maggie, surely battle weary and possibly even regretful over the failing strategy that she very much helped develop, yet still woefully (and I suspect deliberately) obtuse when it comes to what her work has actually wrought. She lays this out in a new piece for National Review Online, where she argues that "the left" has essentially played dirty on the issue of marriage and is now applying that to other fights. Here's a pertinent snip:

The recent flaying of Brendan Eich for the sin of donating to Prop 8 was only the visible wedge of a far larger mechanism at work. At a seminar in Washington, a young left-leaning member of a usually conservative religious denomination challenged me on this point: “Doesn’t it show that executives shouldn’t donate to controversial issues?” she asked.

Don’t kid yourself, young lady; the business owners who donated against Prop 8 faced no such effective retaliation for their private and personal donations. Right now, the stigma game is one-way, directed by those who have power and know how to use it against traditionalist communities they hate. (No doubt, if cultural conservatives had more power like that, they would use it in ways that would outrage liberals — I am not making a moral point here, just pointing out the mechanics as truthfully as I can.) 

FULL: Organizing Groupthink // The Left applies lessons learned from gay-marriage victories to the next war. [NRO]

Business owners who donated against Prop 8 didn't face retaliation? Well no, obviously not. That's because equality is a good thing. Fairness is a virtue. Despite the pro-discrimination crowd's willfully misleading framing, this marriage fight is not a two-sided conversation with equally-merited positions. Opting to discriminate against your fellow citizen, especially in a fight that is almost exclusively in place because of people who want to overextend their religious convictions, is a really bad choice.

Prop 8 supporters have never had reason or cause to retaliate against those who fought against the discriminatory measure. There is not one California citizen who opposes marriage equality whose life has been changed in any way by the roller coaster Prop 8 debate. When the state supreme court first brought marriage equality to California, oppositional straight people were just as married as they ever were. When Prop 8 passed that November, none of these oppositional folks were any more married than they were the day before the election. Same goes for the court battle, right up until present day, when equality is now and forever the order of the day in California and the entire west coast. There are surely people in the area who very much wish Prop 8 were still a reality, but while they might be annoyed or even dismayed, their rights are not in any way altered and their lives are not really affected.

This is not true for many of us who opposed Prop 8. Thousands of couples who successfully married before the passage of the ban saw their unions in limbo. Many more couples were denied the opportunity for many years after. Personally, I had my entire wedding planned in California, which my husband and I had to cancel and move to Connecticut after Prop 8 went into effect (our vendors had placed special Prop 8 language into all of the contracts that we signed that summer). And there are countless other stories. Because those of us who are gay, or even those of us who simply love and support LGBT people and equality, had very real rights at stake. And not only rights but an overall peace of mind. It is an uniquely dehumanizing experience to have your civil rights turned into a popularity contest.

I understand why Maggie doesn't want to focus on the very tangible and easily perceptible harms connected to her legacy. Sure, she largely denies that there are any, instead insisting that she has been working for good. However, that narrative is looking flimsier and flimsier. Heck, even NOM, which Maggie co-founded and stewarded, is now admitting that the laws that have long-denied us are, indeed, bans. When this story is told over the next many years and decades and centuries, people are not going to have to be told which side was the aggressor. People know what a ban is. People know what discriminatory rhetoric sounds like. People know what offense and defense looks like.

The lesson Maggie should learn from her own time in the marriage fight is that the script won't change simply because the the wily foe doesn't like the role into which he has been cast. You can't work day in and day out to achieve a certain plot then overlook all the backstory when the first act's downtrodden team becomes the final act's prevailing voice of reason.

DOJ: Losing Losers At NOM Deserve No Legal Fees For Their Losing Lawsuit

The Department of Justice has issued a blisteringly scornful response to NOM's demand for nearly $700K in attorneys' fees for their lawsuit over the accidental release of their tax return. Enjoy:

Despite losing all the significant issues in this case and settling a damages claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars for $50,000, the National Organization for Marriage, Inc. (“NOM”) now seeks over $691,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Court should deny NOM’s motion in its entirety. The Court need not delve into NOM’s massive bills and complex algorithms to determine a reasonable attorney fee, because NOM is not the “prevailing party” — either with respect to the amount in controversy or the most significant issue pled. Regarding the amount in controversy, NOM has cherry picked the actual damages it was claiming during the course of this suit and, in fact, received less than half of what it was claiming when all amounts are properly considered. Also, NOM’s view of the most significant issue is belied by the face of its sworn Verified Complaint. Under both analyses, therefore, NOM is not a prevailing party. The Court’s analysis should end there — NOM is not entitled to any attorneys’ fees. 

But even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to determine that (a) NOM was the prevailing party, and (b) the United States was not substantially justified in defending this suit, NOM’s fee request is deficient in several respects. First, NOM incorrectly uses the Vienna Metro Matrix to determine a reasonable hourly fee for its seven timekeepers; federal law provides for a statutory cap on an attorneys’ hourly rate in such suits against the government. Second, the very request for over $691,000 in fees in order to collect a $50,000 settlement is facially unreasonable. There are also other deficiencies in NOM’s request, including the fact that counsel spent over a year preparing for, researching and drafting its Verified Complaint. Thus, if the Court were to even reach the issue of whether NOM’s fee request is reasonable, which it should not, the Court should significantly reduce NOM’s request and award it minimal fees.

Top Anti-Marriage Group: Our Boycott Has Stopped Starbucks' International Expansion

Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization For Marriage, is stunningly claiming that "Dump Starbucks," NOM's flaccid boycott of international coffee colossus Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX), has actually stopped their global expansion. Brown offers not one shred of proof, not even the names of the "many" countries he claims have refused to let the $15 billion Seattle-based java giant open stores, in an interview on a Catholic radio program.

Here's the audio, captured and published by Good As You's Jeremy Hooper.

“The media will say the boycotts have minimal or no effect," Brown says. "The reality is that companies like Starbucks are trying to expand around the world, and as Americans stand up and say, 'this is wrong,' and they highlight that companies like Starbucks are supporting same-sex marriage, it forces the mask to come off.

“Starbucks to this day claims that they do not take positions on political issues, and because of the Dump Starbucks boycott, for example, many countries have looked at Starbucks and individuals that would be allowing Starbucks into the country have said, 'no no no no,' because Starbucks does endorse the redefinition of marriage.

“For global companies, it has an effect, both in America and abroad.

“Most importantly, though, how can we view it as moral to be giving our dollars to a company that directly is attacking our faith? ...You have to take a stand at some point.”

Even though Brown offered absolutely no facts whatsoever to back up his spurious claims, here are a few that refute them.

In the past five years, Starbucks' share price has more than quadrupled, from $19.03 to a close yesterday of $77.87. 

Starbucks, as of June, has 23,305 stores in 65 countries,including in Middle East countries (see chart, right) where NOM tried to get its "Dump Starbucks" boycott to take off -- it never did.

NOM Boycott of Target is Epic Fail

A laughably measly 2583 people have signed NOM's boycott petition for Target since the retail giant submitted pro-gay marriage briefs last week in the states of Wisconsin and Indiana. NOM's 30-month-old boycott petition for Starbucks has yielded 68,745 names - a number that has scarcely budged in the last two years. Their 25-month-old boycott petition for General Mills petered out in the fall of 2012 and the current total of 27,612 names is only a couple of hundred more than a year ago. And of course, the more recent boycott petition for trillion-dollar international banking behemoth JP Morgan Chase remains stalled with barely more than 7000 names. Are you seeing the trend here?

NOM Will Never Go Away, Says NOM

NOM's Brian Brown  (Source:AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The leader of the National Organization for Marriage, a group hell bent on banning marriage equality in the U.S., said in an interview with the Guardian this week that his group will never go away -- even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage.

"We're not going away," Brian Brown, president of the NOM, told the U.K. newspaper. "We've been hearing about our demise for the last 15 years. It hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen, even if the [US supreme] court is to do the unthinkable in an attempt to redefine marriage and the law."

His comments come as the sixth U.S. circuit court of appeals in Cincinnati hears oral arguments covering six gay marriage rulings in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

NOM, and groups like NOM (like the Family Research Council), are facing with a changing America as new polls show more Americans are in favor of marriage equality.

The Supreme Court has not taken a case about gay marriage since it struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 in June 2013. It is likely, however, that the high court will hear a case out of Utah or Virginia. The Guardian notes the earliest the Supreme Court would make a decision is 2015.

Though attitudes are undergoing a sea change, Brown isn't buying it, saying the research is faulty and the media is spinning facts.

"I'm sure, probably, there's been some increase in support for that agenda since 2008," Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at Family Research Council, told the Guardian. "If the question is worded as a question of civil rights, constitutional rights, equality and so forth, those are broad principles Americans tend to sympathize with and so, framing it in that way is going to inevitably lead to higher polling numbers in support of that position."

Springg added: "We do not accept the theory that same-sex marriage is inevitable or that defeat in the Supreme Court is inevitable. If that were to occur, we would respond to it at that time. I can say with certainty that we would continue to promote marriage between one man and one woman as the family form of greatest benefit to children."

Maggie Mocks Gay Parenting Study

"The New York Times and the media are widely reporting the results of a new study of 500 children raised by same-sex couples. Researchers are aghast that such a shoddy piece of work, which is based on a convenience sample of parents who volunteered to be surveyed, and which relies solely on these parents’ reports to determine child well-being, should have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. The author is facing a petition and statement signed by hundreds of reputable academics, questioning his moral character and scientific integrity, and the editor of the journal who published such a thing faces similar attacks and enquiries about whether the peer-review process was compromised. Oh wait, the study shows children of same-sex parents do better than the average child, after adjusting for income. Never mind." - Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review.

Love Always Wins!