NOM BLOG News: Jitters and Bliss Coffee respects ALL customers


Dump Starbucks

Welcome to the News!

At you can enter your city or zip code and come up with local coffee shop alternatives to Starbucks. However, most of us do not purchase every cup of coffee while we are out around town. This week we are proud to roll out Jitters and Bliss Coffee as a provider of excellent coffee that can be brewed with a clean conscience any time you want at home, at the office or at your church.

With over 160 different types of coffee they have something for every taste. Do you want to purchase free trade, organic coffee? They have 20 options. Do you like flavored coffee? Try one of the 58 different types offered by Jitters and Bliss Coffee. Are you an espresso fan? They have 14 varieties. Need a decaf to settle you down in the evening? Jitters and Bliss has 19 different types with which to relax. All this and they’ll ship you whole beans or grind them for you in one of five different styles.

During the month of July Jitters and Bliss is offering a 5% discount to every customer who enters the promotional code "marriage". A small portion of each purchase made also goes to support the National Organization for Marriage as we work to educate people and corporations on the importance of marriage to our society.

What you can do this week:

Check out Jitters and Bliss Coffee! Jitters and Bliss came to us a few weeks back and said that they respect the views of all of their customers on marriage and that they would like to work with us to provide high-quality coffee to former Starbucks customers through their online store.

Let me be clear. Jitters and Bliss has not, as a corporation, taken a position in the debate over marriage. Just like every company, they have customers, employees, and vendors who hold personal views on what marriage ought to be. They are committed to honoring those views by maintaining a neutral corporate position on marriage.

Per a couple of former Starbucks employees—they also have great coffee!

Having worked at Starbucks for 7 years and my husband having been there for 13 years, we are a little picky about our coffee. I prefer being called a coffee connoisseur as opposed to coffee snob!

I have tried 10 brands since we started DumpStarbucks, but hadn’t found a satisfactory replacement until now. I received 3 bags of coffee from Jitters & Bliss yesterday. I have tried two of the coffees so far and they are delicious. The beans are beautiful. Oily and dark. Just yummy!

Not only is their coffee good but they are more reasonably priced than all the other coffees I have tried. I am sold!

Great coffee for a fair price from a company that respects the diverse views of all of their customers on marriage. Check out Jitters & Bliss Coffee!

Don't forget to enter the promotional code "marriage" to receive 5% off your order and support marriage!

Have a great week!

The National Organization for Marriage Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, gifts to which are deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.


  1. Zack
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    I'm sorry but is that really the name of a coffee place? I'm pro traditional marriage and all but that name is kinda funny.

    But good to know that some companies like to remain neutral on this issue.

  2. Jim
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Zack - Offering a discount to NOM supporters and donating a portion of profits to NOM is hardly remaining neutral.

    I respect the right of Jitters and Bliss to give money to whatever cause they want, but let's keep in mind that they are not staying neutral; they are indeed picking a side.

  3. Zack
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink


    It's hardly being politically active either which is what General Mills and Starbucks and even Target have done.

    Target once endorsed a TEA party candidate and immediately recieved flak from the left.

    So please, a company that donates a portion of the proceeds to a non-profit organization is hardly activistm.

  4. John Colgan
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink


    This is EXACTLY like what Target did with the "pride" t-hirts, which NOM attacked them for just weeks ago! If anyone wanted a example of NOM's hypocrisy and situational ethics, this is it in spades.

  5. John Colgan
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    From this blog June 14, 2012:
    "[T]he Target Corporation is donating $120,000 to same-sex marriage advocates who are official participants in the campaign, is saying that the debate will be bad for the Minnesota business community, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."—Jonathan Baker, Director of the Corporate Fairness Project, NOM—

    Seems to me that in this instance it equally true that:
    ""[T]he Jitters and Bliss Corporation is donating X dollars to same-sex marriage opponents at NOM, who are official participants in the campaign, and still has the nerve to say they are not taking a position on the marriage amendment itself."

  6. AD
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Isn't this exactly what you're boycotting other companies for doing?

  7. Michael
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    If you use a Microsoft Product (XBox, Windows OS) you are supporting a Company that Supports Marriage Equality. The same goes if you use Apple or Linux. It is not possible to use a computer without the company that designed the OS supporting Marriage Equality. Just some food for thought.

  8. Richard B Cortijo
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Jim and John, I see the NOMers suddenly have no words. NOM is soley based on bigotry and hypocracy.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Michael, there is a difference between supporting marriage equality and corrupting marriage. Everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite gender, regardless of race, faith, or sexual desires. The same set of standards apply to every individual. Everyone is treated the same. No discrimination.

  10. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Cue the ant-gay protests. Another mainstream company has hired an openly gay celebrity as a spokesperson.

    Procter & Gamble announced Monday that comedian and actress Wanda Sykes ("The New Adventures of Old Christine") has become its "Gain Scent Matchmaker" to promote Gain detergents. The interactive YouTube spot features Sykes helping visitors to choose their scent among such options as Apple Mango Tango, Icy Fresh Fizz and Butterfly Kiss. Sykes was already doing voiceover work for Gain.

    “Gain understands, like me, that it’s all about finding the things that make us happy, like scent, and having a little fun,” Sykes said in a press release.

    Sykes, who came out as a lesbian in 2008 and whose wife gave birth to twins in 2009, is the latest high-profile gay pitchwoman to back a mainstream company.

  11. John McLaren
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Now Proctor and Gamble...whew that's another giant company we'll have to boycott. No coffee, no General Foods, no Kraft...and now lots of dirty laundry piling up!!

  12. AM
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    John McLaren/ Shane Mahaffy
    Your conversation with yourself is amusing.

  13. Herb
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    You'll have to add Microsoft to your list. Bill Gates just contributed $100,000 to marriage equity.

  14. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Just a correction Michael, Linux is a OS platform that is neutral, unlike Apple and Windows.

    I imagine some of the developers support marriage equality, some don't, some don't care. And whatever the inclinations of the developers, it's open sourced, and can be downloaded for free, so no one profits from anyone using it.

  15. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    How exactly is it "respecting all customers" to be donating to an organization that is dedicated to denying some people full equality under the law?

    I mean, we can agree to disagree, but Jitters and Bliss is clearly NOT, as NOM would like, "remaining neutral." They have picked a side.

    So, no way are they "respecting all" customers.

  16. Posted July 2, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    So... how is that whole "remain neutral" thing going, Brian? Remaining neutral means remaining neutral: not offering discounts and donating 5% of profits to the National Organization for Marriage.


  17. RC
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    NOM lies. Boldly, poorly, and often. (A triple threat!)

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted July 2, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    "Sour grapes."

    the opposition

  19. Bryce K.
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    What about the opposition, Barb? I love your insightful comments. :)

  20. David Argue
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    If I understand correctly, Jitters and Bliss is giving their customers the option of having a percentage of their purchase donated to NOM. If they don't want to do it, they just don't enter the promotional code. That is different from a corporation saying they are going to donate to a specific cause, as it does not give the purchaser of their goods a chance to opt out.

  21. dn
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Right, David Argue, because when offered the chiice to pay more or less for the exact sqme product, someone out there chooses to pay more.

    I'm enjoying the deafening silence from the NOMmers, as even they can't get behind NOM's obvious hypocrisy here. Big win, NOM. Way to go.

  22. Randy E King
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Letting their customer decide if they want to support a given cause is a night and day difference from mandating all dollar spent go to support a given cause; the latter happens to be tyranny - which marriage corruption supporters shamelessly embrace.

    Now that I know an option is afforded I will be placing my order today ; checking the option to contribute - thank you very much.

  23. D
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Kudos for NOM! We'll make General Mills think again about their STUPID decision too!

  24. Jim
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    @David Argue - Remaining neutral would mean not donating money or giving discounts to anybody. There is no promotional code for equality that results in a donation being made to Equality California. Jitters and Bliss is clearly picking a side.

    Note that I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do so. I'm just saying it's wrong for NOM (and you) to claim that they are neutral.

  25. D
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Technically Jim, they are agreeing with the law in the most
    states. I guess anyone who agrees with law is "intolerent" NOT!

  26. John Colgan
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Boy for a company that openly courted controversy, the folks at Jitters and Bliss sure are a bunch of shrinking violets. They are banning people from commenting on their FB page for posting the EXACT sort of comments their new friends at NOM encouraged their followers to leave on Starbucks' FB page.

    Of course, given the situational ethics so prevalent among NOMies, you probably don't even see the contradiction, let alone the hypocrisy.

  27. David Argue
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @Jim - I Never said they were neutral. That would involve staying out of the controversy completely. At least though, they are not not raising the price for those who prefer not to participate. That would be wrong. That being said, I do have to take issue with your 'code for equality' statement. This issue has nothing to do with equality.

  28. John Colgan
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink


    Isn't providing a 5% discount to those, who wish to have a portion of their purchase sent to NOM, really in effect a 5% surcharge on those, who do not wish to fund anti-gay discrimination with their coffee purchase?

    Also, NOM and it's minions pitched a fit last month when Target chose to sell pride t-shirts and donate the proceeds from the sale of that item only to a pro-equality group. I don't recall you objecting to NOM's actions then with the argument that Target customers not wanting to support equal treatment of their LGBT fellow citizens could simply chose not to purchase pride t-shirts. So you've merely provided us with yet of further example of situational ethics, without which NOMies would be completely bereft of any ethics what so ever.

  29. LEO
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    GReat idea NOM, count me in!

  30. Zack
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    @John Colgan

    "This is EXACTLY like what Target did with the "pride" t-hirts, which NOM attacked them for just weeks ago!"

    No it's not the same. What Target was or is doing is promoting counter culture values via marketing. What has jitters done? Are they staging protests? Are they naming any of their coffee brands after a religious symbol or figure?

    No, simply donating a portion of what you pay to a cause is no different than what grocery stores do for starving children.

  31. John Colgan
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink


    You make the assertion, but are either unable or unwilling to support it.

    What Target did was offer a product that customers could choose to purchase or not and said purchases supported an outside organization. What Jitters has done is offer a discount on ALL their products to people, who wish part of their purchase to support an outside organization.

    The ONLY difference is what type of outside organization is being supported. Why don't the NOMies just admit that their calls for corporate neutrality are hypocritical and admit that they want to support corps that support them and punish those that don't? It would at least be honest!

  32. bman
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Scott Wooledge-> organization that is dedicated to denying some people full equality under the law?

    An organization is right minded that denies equality to vice.

  33. Zack
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    @John Colgan

    "The ONLY difference is what type of outside organization is being supported."

    Well no, because Jitters and Bliss isn't selling a product to a targeted group of people.

    Target has with their "pride" shirts. Same thing with the rainbow cookie.

    "Why don't the NOMies just admit that their calls for corporate neutrality are hypocritical and admit that they want to support corps that support them and punish those that don't?

    I don't support any company that takes a political stance. And I'm not a "NOMie" or whatever you wish to call me, I'm an individual who simply believes in Traditional Marriage. Third, they're saying the 5% is only accessable if you use the promotional code. Just about every social liberal here believe that Starbucks and General Mills and companies like them are trying to tap into market audiences correct? Well then, It could be quite possible that this particular company wants to take a different route by straying from the pop culture.

    The only thing the so called "equality" groups are complaining about is the optional discount that sends a small portion of the money to NOM. It's just that, optional if you use the promotion code.

    It's not different than someone donating to a charity. It's their choice.

  34. Bruce
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan:
    "Why don't the NOMies just admit that their calls for corporate neutrality are hypocritical and admit that they want to support corps that support them and punish those that don't? It would at least be honest!"

    I couldn't agree more. For an organization which is hypersensitive about the definition of marriage, they show a striking indifference to the definition of neutrality.

  35. Rob Farrell
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    Wow. You have just destroyed Jitters and Bliss Coffee. They have been inundated by angry comments and e-mails. They had to take down their Facebook page.

    Congratulations. You set out to close down a coffee seller. You have succeeded quite well.

  36. John Colgan
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink


    Anyone is free to purchase or not purchase Target's pride shirts. Target charges the same-price to ALL their customers, regardless of their views.

    In contrast, J&B charges more if a customer does not wish to support NOM's anti-gay activities, effectively discriminating against customers with pro-equality views. Do you honestly expect us to believe that if a company offered a discount to customers, who a portion of their purchase price to go the Freedom to Marry, you and your fellow NOMies wouldn't be pitching the mother of all fits? Give me a break!

    I see in your third point do end up admitting that what J&B is doing is EXACTLY like what Starbucks and Target did, you just don't like the side they are supporting. I'd thank you for your honesty, but it was obviously an inadvertent side effect of the logical contortions you are going through trying to avoid acknowledging your hypocrisy.

    Futhermore, Starbucks didn't shut down their FB page after NOM sent their minions to post attacking their support for civil marriage equality. Like I said before, for a company that went courting controversy, the folks at Jitters and Bliss certainly are a bunch of shrinking violets and frankly moral cowards, in my opinion.

  37. Chairm
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan, regardless of the specifics in this instance, the SSM campaign has an immoral goal and its ways and means are thoroughly bigoted.

  38. John Colgan
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink


    Exactly how are the way and means of the civil marriage equality campaign thoroughly bigoted? Be specific, use both sides if you have to.

  39. Ash
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Rob Farrell, thanks for the laugh. The company should have been warned that they would get a rash of hate and vitriol from SSMers for making this move.

    Angry comments and emails...why, that's the M.O. of SSMers. A bunch of ravenous animals they are.

    And I love how you put it: NOM destroyed Jitters and Bliss. As for the loonies who trashed their facebook page? Well, they couldn't help's NOM's fault!

  40. John Colgan
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink


    Actually, there was nothing worse on Jitters FB page than what NOM encouraged their supporters to leave on Starbucks FB page. No one "trashed" Jitters FB page, they were merely unwilling to deal with the very controversy they sought out. Did they think that supporters of marriage equality wouldn't give them exactly what NOMies gave Starbucks?

    Of course, like the rest of the hypocrite NOMies, you are quick to smear supporters of marriage equality and completely unconcerned about the truth.

  41. Chairm
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    John Colgan, I am certain that your explanation of your intended meaning for the bumpersticker slogan, marriage equality, will suffice to illustrate the progay bigotry that characterizes the SSM idea and the ways and means of promoting that idea.

    State your intended meaning for that slogan and let the chips fall were they may.

  42. Ash
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    John C., I’m sure that NOM did not encourage its supporters to leave angry and hateful posts on the Starbucks Facebook wall. In fact, I vaguely remember Jonathan Baker (or maybe it was Brian) asking people to remain polite when expressing disappointment with Starbucks in any way, whether it be on Facebook, or with a café manager.

    You need to clarify what happened with Rob Farrell. He claims that Jitters was “inundated” with angry comments and e-mails and had to take down their page. I don’t think Starbucks had to take down their page as a result of disagreement from NOMers.

    I know one thing for sure: I won’t take *your* word for it when you say that their page wasn’t “trashed,” nor will I accept your definition of what it means to “trash” a Facebook page.

    Considering how SSMers swamp every Facebook venue they disagree with and behave abhorrently, I’m sure we’d have different views on what it means to “trash” a Facebook page in any case.

  43. John Colgan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink


    In a May 28th post Jonathan Baker encouraged NOMies to post the following to Starbucks FB page, he did not include any admonition to be polite anywhere in the post:

    "Why have you disrespected the views of millions of customers and thousands of employees by endorsing same-sex marriage and fighting to destroy the federal Defense of Marriage Act? Visit to make your voice heard."

    I used this as text re-written to reflect a pro-equality rather than anti-gay viewpoint, and it got me banned from posting on J&B page. I am not at all surprised that you continue to believe that J&B's page was "trashed", despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support this contention. I would expect nothing less from you, you've made it quite clear that facts are irrelevant to you if the fail to support your anti-gay agenda.

    Starbucks didn't shut down their FB page, despite receiving far more unfriendly comments than J&B because, unlike J&B they have the moral courage of their convictions. Could they really have been surprised at unfavorable FB posts, when they intentionally cozied up to group, who actively encourage their minions to post unfavorable FB posts on a companies website in the very campaign they are endorsing? I mean come on, no one is that stupid.

    My guess is NOM will be hypocritically highlighting the Bliss family in one of their phony marriage ADA bits any time now.

  44. John Colgan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink


    Marriage Equality means equal marriage rights for gay and straight couples.

    I'm interested to see how you twist that into bigotry in a way that doesn't make NOMies guilty of even more bigotry.

  45. Ash
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    John, I said that I recall reading either Jonathan or Brian telling supporters to be respectful in expressing disappointment. That’s what I remember, and I’m not desperate to prove to you that they said it. We all know that there are FAR more posts on the Dump Starbucks campaign than the one on May 28th.

    Honestly, I’m just going by Rob Farrell’s account in comment #35. HE said that Jitters was “inundated” with angry e-mails and comments and had to take down their Facebook page. I didn’t say it; HE did. You may not view that as a trashing, but so what?

    It’s not that important to me what happened, believe it or not. I was just responding to the words of another commenter. I don’t need to provide you evidence of *anything* because I don’t care what happened one way or the other, and I’m surely not desperate to prove anything to you. I just thought it was funny that—according to another commenter—SSMers acted in their usual, hostile manner and swamped a page so much so that Jitters had to take it down.

    If Jitters was *really* expecting, and was not surprised by, the unfavorable posts, then perhaps you could offer an explanation for why they removed their Facebook page. In fact, you contradicted yourself. They lack “moral courage of their convictions” but *did* expect to receive a bunch of hostile comments?

    You’ve made it quite clear that logic is irrelevant to you if it doesn’t support your bigoted, pro-gay agenda.

  46. John Colgan
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Well, I guess the censors will decide if you get to read my response.

  47. bman
    Posted July 7, 2012 at 4:35 am | Permalink

    Marriage Equality means equal marriage rights for gay and straight couples.

    It actually means vice and virtue are treated equally, which means the moral corruption of society.

  48. Chairm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan, thank you for the response. You claim that supporters of NOM are guilty of bigotry.

    You said: "I'm interested to see how you twist that into bigotry in a way that doesn't make NOMies guilty of even more bigotry."

    What are your criteria for assessing bigotry, John Colgan?

    Here are the standard criteria that I think are reasonable:


    The tenets or actions of a bigot; obstinate or blind attachment to a particular belief system or to certain tenets; unreasoning zeal; intolerance.

    Note that in one sense to define 'bigotry' it is necessary to define 'bigot'. That means identifying actions or tenets that delineate bigotry.

    The quality of the attachment is also a measure of bigotry.


    A person obstinately and unreasonably attached to a particular belief, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to any opinion, belief system, or group, and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently.

    Note that in this sense the definitive aspect is not this or that particular belief or viewpoint. The defining characteristics are unreasoning zeal or blind attachment and bitter intolerance.

    Thus there is the sense of bigotry defined by certain tenets. And there is the sense of bigotry defined by characteristic behavior including how one responds to a different tenet. Likewise with an opinion or an action or a practice or a group.

    At times the quality of the attachment is bigoted but is also distinct from that to which the attachment has been formed. At times, vice versa. And, at times, the distinction is one without a difference.

    _ _ _ _

    You also said:

    "Marriage Equality means equal marriage rights for gay and straight couples."

    Again, you will need to define your terms. What do you intend by "gay couple" and "straight couple"?

    To state the obvious: there is no straight criterion for eligibility to marry; and no gay criterion for ineligibility to marry now under the bride-groom requirement.

    The twosome limit is based on that bride-groom requirement. The bride-groom requirement is based on the core meaning of marriage.

    That core meaning is reflected in the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage law: see the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and of course the marital presumption that the husband will be the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. The core meaning of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole -- as a foundational social institution of civil society. This is the marriage idea.

    The marriage idea provides the justification for the special status of marriage (marital status is a special status) in our laws, traditions, and culture. Societal regard for this provides justification for the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; the boundaries for eligibility and ineligibility depend on societal preference for marriage as differentiated from nonmarriage.

    The marriage idea, and the supporters of it, depend on what marriage is before the law even enters the picture. Marriage has a reality independent of the law; that is how societies can sometimes get the law wrong and sometimes get it right.

    The nature of marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind; from the two-sexed nature of human procreation; and from the two-sexed nature of human community. The foundation of civil society is the organic unit -- the family led by mom-dad -- and this is so across the historical and anthropological records. While the parameters of marriage -- the protocols and regulations around the core of marriage -- have varied, the core has remained constant. Societal preference for the husband-wife union runs across ethnic, political, religious, and irreligious lines.

    Thus, we do not depend on bigotry but on the use of reason and on respect for human dignity.

    The SSM idea is an outright rejection of all of that -- of the marriage idea itself and all that informs society to show it preferential treatment.

    So, when you claim that this is about a gay-straight dichotomy, well, on the basis of the law you are mistaken and on the basis of what makes marriage, marriage, you are also mistaken. Sure, that emphasis on gayness is central to the SSM idea and the SSM campaign, but that depends very much on promoting favoritism for the gay identity group.

    There is a marriage category. And so there is also a nonmarriage category. Of all the variations in the wide spectrum of types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category, why must society now entrench favoritism for a gay subset?

    Typically the gay emphasis is all that SSMers offer. But the issue is marriage, not gay identity, when it comes to marriage law. Marriage law is for marriage and not for other stuff.

    The promotion of gay identity politics is one thing. The assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage, over marriage law, over the principles of good governance, well, that is quite another thing.

    The assertion of such supremacy was wrong when it was done for the sake of white identity politics and it would be wrong if done for the sake of gay identity politics.

    The problem for SSMers is rather basic and yet to be resolved.

    Name the essential(s) of SSM such that it is clearly the same as marriage but clearly different from nonmarriage. Show how the essential(s) of SSM would be required and government enforced in the law; show how such essential(s) would merit special status on par with marital status; show how discriminating between SSM and non-SSM/non-marriage would be justified.

    But do not contradict your own pro-SSM argumentation and rhetoric which you would use to reject the legitimacy of the core meaning of marriage and its two-sexed sexual basis in our laws, traditions, and culture.

    The unresolved problem for SSMers is to justify that special status without contradicting themselves; the unresolved problem is for SSMers to differentiate SSM from the rest of nonmarriage.

    And that leads directly to the typical reliance on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics by SSMers far and wide.

    Such an assertion is merely pro-gay bigotry. It is not based on reason; it is not based on respect for human dignity. It fits the meaning of bogotry as noted above.

    But perhaps you, John Colgan, will do better than the leading voices of the SSM campaign and resolve what has been on the table from day one of the SSM campaign.

  49. Chairm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan, your response confirms that you rely on progay bigotry.

    The gay-straight dichotomy is irrelevant to marriage idea. It is central to the SSM idea. In fact the elevation of gay identity politics over all other considers, including over the justification for the preferential status of marriage, is what your slogan really means. Nothing less. But nothing more.

    I left a comment that has not yet appeared. It describes the standard criteria for assessing bigotry.

    What are you criteria, John Colgan, such that your own comments may be assessed?

  50. bman
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, it looks like John Colgan is avoiding the discussion now that you have responded .

  51. John Colgan
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink


    No, I just debating with incoherent lunatics to be a complete waste of my time.

  52. John Colgan
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink


    Seems Jitters and Bliss's FB page is back up, and they claim in comments that they are no longer giving money to NOM. Care to comment, NOM?

  53. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan,

    You have wasted your time (and the time of the readership) by your accusing others of bigotry and yet you now say that you cannot find the time nor make the effort to plainly state your criteria for assessing comments, including your own, for bigotry.

    Instead you namecalled.

    And as you did you belied your knowledge that your accusations have been incoherent all along.

    Care to comment on your own self-defeating words, John Colgan? If not, your silence will speak for you.

  54. John Colgan
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink


    Or my "silence" could just reflect the activities of NOM censors.

  55. bman
    Posted July 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    John Colgan->No, I just [consider] debating with incoherent lunatics to be a complete waste of my time.

    Chairm made various points.

    Can you quote where this alleged incoherency occurs?