Posts Tagged ‘marriage equality’
Prop-8 news broke today. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled the statute unconstitutional. We can expect to see marriage opponents before the Supreme Court in the near future.
Among the struggle for marriage equality across the country–serious consideration being given in Maine, New Jersey, and Maryland–an interesting trend has come about in the business world.
Starbucks has come under fire for its support of same-sex marriage in Washington state, where it is headquartered. The coffee company joins the ranks of Microsoft and Nike, who also have voiced their support.
Why are these companies putting their economic necks on the line while plenty of others have stayed silent? Frank Bruni argues in the New York Times that “It’s the future.”
Now that marriage licenses are offered to two consenting adults, irrespective of their sex, in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., it has become clear to these companies that living in the past and upholding a discriminatory position on the matter does them no good.
As well, they’re betting that it makes business sense to speak out. Time will tell if they’re right. What do you think?
Image from the Daily Kos!
This year could be a big one for supporters of marriage equality across the country. State legislatures in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland are all engaging the issue this year.
In order for marriage equality to pass, supporters need both Democrats and Republicans to vote for it.
But Republicans who decide to support the measure have to break ranks with their party to do so – and for many that could mean angering conservative constituents and tempting primary challenges.
But the numbers are telling a different story for those Republicans who support marriage equality.
While some supporters are touting the economic benefits of marriage equality for states, the newest round of campaign finance reports tells of a different kind of economic benefit that comes along with supporting same-sex marriage
The New York Times published an article this week reporting that the four Republican senators who split with their party to support gay marriage in New York have seen HUGE jumps in their fundraising.
One senator received 27 times as many donations in this most recent fundraising period compared to the same one in 2009, before his vote. Much of the donations came from people who often identified as both gay and far left. Many had never supported a Republican before, but money started flowing into the four senators for their support.
These four senators aren’t the only ones making some moo-la from marriage. Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose fervent support was credited with the measure’s success, raised over 6 million dollars in the six months after his effort. And three Wall Street Executives donated $350,000 to the NY Senate Republican Campaign Committee – who came out AGAINST the bill – as a thank you for allowing the vote to take place.
A strategist for the Human Rights Campaign, one of the national organizations working on LGBT equality issues, explained that
It was essential to send a clear signal around the country that we will support those who support equality, irrespective of party. We were able to win marriage in New York with a bipartisan coalition of fair-minded elected officials. We need to replicate that if we are to keep winning.
So what do you think – are these political contributions better than a thank you note? Will donors follow suit if Republicans in WA, MD, and NJ also break ranks? And should Republicans making up their minds about marriage equality take these possible benefits into consideration?
Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate (and Tea Party-endorsed, too) for New York’s governor made an interestingly-timed statement against gay marriage to a Jewish Orthodox crowd on Sunday, much to the dismay of gay rights advocates and some Republican strategists alike.
Paladino is getting a lot of flack for his comments and is working to defend them, albeit carefully. Here’s a taste of Mr. Paladino’s remarks that incited all of this newsworthiness:
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.
(Watch:)
New York Magazine cheekily offered the GOP gubernatorial candidate a better way to put those remarks.
The Week compiled list of reactions to Paladino’s remarks. Pretty much thumbs down across the board. Of course, Paladino is entitled to his opinions on the issue of gay marriage, but with the run up to elections in November, he might have been better off sticking to something a little less contentious at this point in time.
Doing some damage control, Carl Paladino appeared with Matt Lauer on The Today Show. There he proclaimed his views on homosexuality were “unequivocal” and that he has “absolutely no problem with it whatsoever”… EXCEPT when it comes to marriage. And letting children be exposed to things like gay pride parades. The whole interview is worth watching:
There’s no doubt that the issue of gay marriage is complex for plenty of people, but this blogger thinks that what isn’t complicated is the idea of equality and non-discrimination. ForeverPlaid can’t speak for everyone at USDemocrazy.net to be sure, but perhaps Mr. Paladino might have chosen his words more carefully and respectfully to reflect his opinions that he is supposedly fine with homosexuality (just not marriage equality).
For those of you who missed it, Monday was National Coming Out Day in the United States and during this week, the LGBTQ community and its straight allies will be promoting awareness of the importance of coming out and support for the community.
In honor of National Coming Out Day (and the week of awareness that follows), ForeverPlaid would rather listen to Harvey Milk’s take on gay issues and the importance of coming out rather than Carl Paladino’s…
How do you think Carl Paladino handled this uproar? Let us know in the comments section.
We at USDemocrazy are glad for the rights we have, since without them, we wouldn’t be able to help you digest all this ridiculous stuff that keeps happening in the world.
It turns out, we’re not the only ones who like having rights in America. The gay community appreciates rights too!
President Obama has taken heat recently by many people for many things. One unhappy group (thus far) has been a constituency that greatly supports him: gay Americans. They are unhappy because he has been slow to fulfill campaign promises to address gay rights issues. (Of course, he has been a little busy of late…)
On Wednesday President Obama made his first nod in their direction. He signed a bill extending some rights to homosexual federal employees and their partners. This bill, according to the Washington Post,
grants employees’ same-sex partners access to a government insurance program that pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease. They also would be allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.
Mr. Obama noted at the signing ceremony,
“Many of our government’s hard-working and dedicated, patriotic public servants have long been denied basic rights that their colleagues enjoy, for one simple reason: The people they love are of the same sex.”
Sure, this is progress, but it is nothing close to what gay rights activists are going for.
John Aravosis wrote for Salon that the gay community is pretty fed up with President Obama, specifically for acting as a protector of equality during the campaign, but doing little since then. He writes,
And while gay and lesbian Americans were initially willing to cut our new president some slack, the president’s now-clear reticence to follow through on even one of his many campaign promises to the gay community has put the Democratic Party on the precipice of an ugly and very public divorce with this once-solid constituency.
And then, there’s this: http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com/
The White House resents all of this negative representation of the Obama stance on gay rights.
Marc Ambinder points out for The Atlantic, Obama is simply prioritizing right now. Like we said… the guy has been a little bit busy of late.
Ambinder suggests what gays want from Obama isn’t “long-term health care:”
They want Obama to expend his political capital to get super-majorities in the Senate for legislation getting rid of the ban on gays in the military and ending discrimination against gays in the workplace.
And so, it is up to all of us to decide: is Obama being overly cautious with this controversial cultural issue? Or is he just not as big supporter of gay rights as advertised?
(Just an aside… It’s worth noting that this article in the New York Times points out that people becoming less enchanted with Obama… Gay rights activists included…)
And Obama thought things were tough before…
