My Blog

gay marriage

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

Remember, it was sanctioned by God.

Event Page on Facebook–the conservative commenters are adorable.

God 12 minutes ago

Categories: satire, things that amuse me, Viral Things Tags: boycott, chick-fil-a, chicken sandwich, Dan Cathy, gay, gay marriage, god, make fun of chick-fil-a day, obesity, same-sex marriage

New Suite 101 article online posted today.

How Chick-fil-A Created a Public Relations Nightmare

“I think this is part of the wake-up call for companies to understand that social media makes these decisions very, very risky,” Reed said, “because it’s much easier now for these messages to get out to consumers and consumers to virtually organize.”

Individuals have free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, but they also must accept the responsibilities that come with those rights. When an individual freely take on a figurehead position, he or she essentially becomes the voice of the company and it creates a relationship between the President’s words and the company’s image. By speaking so loosely, Dan Carthy opened himself and Chick-fil-A up to the consequences, and the consequences appear to be socially, politically, and possibly for the company’s profits, significant.

If anything, Chick-fil-a has managed to make a polarizing issue out of the consumption of chicken sandwiches…

Read more at Suite101: How Chick-fil-A Created a Public Relations Nightmare Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/how-chick-fil-a-created-a-public-relations-nightmare-a410405#ixzz22ANCBlxW

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble Tags: anti-gay, chick-fil-a, chicken sandwich, Dan Cathy, Family Research Council, first amendment, gay, gay marriage, PR, The Jim Henson Company, Thomas Menino

A year ago I wrote that SCOTUS would decide on whether or not they would hear California’s Proposition 8 by the end of the term in June 2012.  That turned out be totally wrong, which doesn’t make any sense to me since they managed to squeeze in a whole ruling on Obamacare.

Via Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was scheduled for September 10. The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, to review the case, and the Court won’t decide whether to take the case until September 24 or later. Now the Ninth Circuit has canceled oral argument in the case pending the Supreme Court conference and subsequent decision to hear the case or not.

That’s for DOMA; no word on Prop 8 yet. I also don’t understand why CA same-sex marriages are on hold since it makes more sense for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to be upheld in the meantime.

A troll on Facebook said yesterday that “gay marriage was so 2007.”  Yanno, cause civil right are so passé.

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble, Uncategorized Tags: california, civil right, gay marriage, ninth circuit, Prop 8, proposition 8, same-sex marriage, SCOTUS, supreme court

From a CNN pubic (lol pubic) opinion poll:

I need to write a real entry with actual words rather than phallic graphs and pics of bears that love cocaine.

And I need to stop stealing things from Andrew Sullivan’s blog.  Oh, I can feel the credibility dripping from my page.

Also, for the record, I try not to call it “gay marriage” because I’m relatively straight (hetereoflexible) but I still want the option to marry a woman if I want to.  Tax cuts, yo.

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble, things that amuse me Tags: gay marriage, graph, penis, phallic, Prop 8, pubic, public opinion

In lieu of recent civil rights break through in California, I decided I would reiterate some of the main points from my same-sex essay. The essay is about 2000 words, so I can understand why it’s not getting many fullviews. I too have a short attention span, and mostly read tumblelogs.

Quoteth the AP article “California’s top court legalizes gay marriage”:

“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”

*headdesk*

1. Marriage is not about love, not in the government ratified sense. No ones preventing gays from loving, living together, or even having a ceremony. Plenty of people who aren’t in love get married.

2. Marriage is not “sacred”, unless you’re talking about in the spiritual or religious sense. Somebody please tell Bush there’s a separation of church and state.

2. Legal marriage is about the 1049 rights, benefits, and privileges are granted by the federal government and the hundreds more granted by the state. Marriage is also about having the title “marriage” so that “equivalent” civil unions don’t echo the failed separate but equal concept.

3. Stop calling it “gay marriage.” Same-sex marriage allows people of the gender to marry regardless of sexual orientation. I’m straight and I want the option to marry a woman if I want to. I want to be able to say, “This is my heterosexual life partner. She is the Jay to my Silent Bob. I want her to be the one that takes custody of me if I’m in a coma and receive my social security when I die.” I’m probably not going to, but goddammit I want that right.

Categories: Politics or: the art of looking for trouble Tags: california, civil rights, gay marriage, heterosexual life partner, same-sex marriage

Perhaps it is the irony of a half-naked man in fairy wings parading the streets of San Francisco claiming he’s just like everyone else. Perhaps, Congress, full of disgruntled men sympathetic to Senator Larry Craig and unable to exercise their public restroom fantasies, exude their anger by passing constitutional amendments barring same-sex couples from marriage. Americans, quite vehemently, are still bickering about what should be done with what President Bush has called “the most fundamental institution of civilization.”

But what exactly do gay people want and why are their opponents so intent on denying it to them? Libertarian journalist and gay-rights proponent, Andrew Sullivan, says he wants the right to marriage, “a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together.” Despite the call for civil rights, marriage has been declared as the “sacred institution” that Bush and his conservative followers so desperately want to “protect” via a constitutional amendment limiting it to a man and a woman. How can a legal institution in a country with a clear division of church and state be sacred? Unless, of course, there are multiple components of marriage—religious, societal, and governmental— and people like the President still have trouble distinguishing them. Once marriage is narrowed to the legal definition with societal implications, one can then better look at the arguments against. However, even after sifting through the name-calling and shaky assertions of societal degradation, there is simply no logical reason why two individuals of the same sex should be denied access to the title of marriage and all encompassing federal and state benefits. Read more…

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: Andrew Sullivan, civil rights, constitutional law, DOMA, gay marriage, same-sex marriage