NOM's Thomas Peters appeared on Register Radio last week and Tim Drake wrote up part of their conversation afterwards:
In the first half of Register Radio, Thomas Peters spoke about recent corporate efforts by corporations such as J.C. Penny's, Target, and Starbucks, to advocate for homosexuality and push for the redefinition of marriage.
"Over the last year or so, gay rights organizations have stepped up their efforts to get corporations involved," said Peters. "It's not the business of corporations to define marriage."
Peters drew attention to Starbuck's, which not only issued a public statement saying that redefining marriage is one of their "core values," but which has also filed an Amicus brief to try to get state laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman struck down.
...Asked why corporations are making these decisions, Peters said that "on the simplest level it's about money, but that the gay rights organizations are very mobilized, very wealthy, and very vocal. "Corporations are not passionately interested in the gay rights agenda. The challenge for Christians is to be as passionate about their belief that marriage is important."
In response to Starbuck's decision, Peters was involved in creating the DumpStarbucks.com boycott. 45,000 supporters have already signed the petition.
"We're sending the message that if you egregiously oppose marriage between one man and one woman and are going to use your profits and proceeds to redefine marriage, we will not support you," explained Peters. "The website also offers alternatives in your area where you can find coffee."
22 Comments
"We're sending the message that if you egregiously oppose marriage between one man and one woman..."
But supporting marriage equality is not opposing marriage between men and women. You're entire argument is based on a straw man. Face it, you don't mind corporations taking a position on marriage equality... as long as it's your position. Large corporations have a responsibility to give back to society. There is nothing inappropriate about corporations working for social justice and taking a strong stand for protecting the families of their employees and customers.
If by "special justice", you mean the destruction of marriage, and its replacement by a foggy Brave New Concept that seems to boil down in its essentials to Federal Friendship Benefits..................
I think it were appropriate to take the strongest stand possible against such an incredibly ill-advised bit of social engineering.
So any corporation that takes the other side of the question can do so, but not on my dime.
Ciao, SBUX.
I expect a corporation to at least stay neutral on this issue. To the opposition "neutral" = "homophobic," but what else can you expect? They're trying to redefine the word "neutral," along with many others.
I recently discovered morethancoffee.org. It's worth checking out.
Rick, Social justice, not special. When you realize that hyperbolic phrases like "destruction of marriage" don't give your argument any credibility? Do you think SCOTUS will be persuaded by your absurdity? Corporations with pro-equality positions know that, contrary to the bigots' tired old talking points, supporting equality doesn't destroy a thing. 650,000 people have signed a petition thanking Starbucks for their position. I don't think you're dumb enough to actually believe this is going to hurt them.
14th:
I am not arguing in front of SCOTUS, more's the reason for marriage defenders to rejoice.
There is nothing even slightly hyperbolic about truthfully reporting the intended destruction of marriage, as what it is:
The intended destruction of marriage.
"Credibility:" is a weasel word employed by those who wish to substitute political correctness for truthful speech.
Since we have defeated you in every electoral contest in which our two levels of "credibility" have been empirically assessed.........
I'd say my credibility factor is exactly where I would hope it would be, five months out from pseudo-marriage Waterloo.
14th:
I am not arguing in front of SCOTUS, more's the reason for marriage defenders to rejoice.
There is nothing even slightly hyperbolic about truthfully reporting the intended destruction of marriage, as what it is:
The intended destruction of marriage.
"Credibility:" is a subjective word employed by those who wish to substitute political correctness for truthful speech.
Since we have defeated you in every electoral contest in which our two levels of "credibility" have been empirically assessed.........
I'd say my credibility factor is exactly where I would hope it would be, five months out from pseudo-marriage Waterloo.
"If by "special justice", you mean the destruction of marriage..."
Ah yeah, the destruction that you insist on but can't prove. See you in court and bring all that evidence!
" To the opposition "neutral" = "homophobic," but what else can you expect? They're trying to redefine the word "neutral," along with many others."
LOL, the FRC called Target anti-Christian for supporting us, and not one word has been said of any company that has remand neutral. Barb, thanks for the hypocrisy reminder.
Imagine, for example, if 14th wanted to redefine “string quartet” to mean any group of instruments. This would obviously have an effect on the institution formerly known as string quartets. To pretend otherwise would be silly. The effect would most likely be negative. How, after all, could one protect or promote the institution formerly known as string quartets without even having a legally acceptable name for the concept?
14th wants to change the legal definition of marriage to something other than what it was for centuries and pretends this will have no effect on the institution formerly known as marriage. This is silly.
Words matter. The old meaning of the word gay has effectively been destroyed by the new meaning. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. Legal definitions matter even more.
Redefining marriage does not create two parallel and equal institutions, old marriage and new marriage peacefully coexisting. Redefining marriage means only one legally recognized institution will exist and any aspect of new marriage that recognizes gender differences between men and women will have no legal force. Far from promoting equality, this will work to the disadvantage of women and increase the already accelerating trend of the feminization of poverty.
The world would be poorer, but still viable if string quarters went into decline or disappeared. Societies, however, inevitably decline if their procreative institutions go into decline. The fertility rate has already fallen below the replacement level in virtually all if the developed world. Increasing longevity and large waves of immigration from less developed countries partly and temporarily mask the consequences, but some institutions, like Social Security, are already threatened. Imagine, for example, a world in which not 3% but 97% of the population was gay. Such a world would not be sustainable. Starbucks might care about sustainable coffee growing. It seems to care little about sustaining other things.
Destruction of marriage = breaking the link between procreation and marriage. Once that link is broken, what argument does a woman have for a man to take responsibility for any children created between the two of them? Secular morality?
Please, we see already how removing the stigma of illegitimate children has worked out for single moms and their kids: higher child poverty, increased poverty for single moms, and more reliance on the government to serve the financial role that dads used to serve in supporting their families.
Where encouraging illegitimacy attacks marriage from the female side (females feel no need to marry to have kids), breaking the link between procreation and marriage attacks marriage from the male side (men feel no need to marry the women they impregnate). What's left but a bunch of children without dads in the household. Brilliant.
Speaking of supportive corporations, let's thank Macy's for their Pride + Joy campaign. To Marriott for their "Be you, with us" campaign. And AT&T for overwhelming support during pride month.
"14th wants to change the legal definition of marriage to something other than what it was for centuries..."
Which one was that? One man, 300 wives and 700 concubines? A rapist and his virgin conquest? A widow and her brother-in-law?
Pete - All of those examples you cite involved....wait for it....the union of men with women. Go figure.
Definitions are descriptive, folks, not prescriptive.
Publius, Lots of words, little more than the same old baseless talking points. Please cite examples of current marriage laws that treat men and women differently. CIVIL marriage is no longer exclusively
heterosexual. Just like allowing women to vote and making democracy no longer exclusively male didn't destroy democracy, allowing same sex couples to marry will not destroy marriage.
"Please cite examples of current marriage laws that treat men and women differently."
Herein lies the problem. SS"M"ers raise the notion that men are the same as women and that there are no laws that state otherwise. With no law in place making the distinction, then dispensing with differences between the sexes through law is fair game, notwithstanding thousands and thousands of years of human history and thousands and thousands of animal species that until now were sufficient for our government and society to accept as sufficient evidence of such differences. The process goes: There is no law that defines what a man is and what a woman is, so we are going to propose a law that says that there is no difference between men and women.
And such is the argument against marriage. Fortunately, such laws as DOMA have anticipated such attacks on marriage and it is just a matter of time before the government recognizes the inanity of wiping away thousand of years of human understanding of the nature of male-female relationships just because the importance of those relationships were never codified in government documents.
I believe the termites working to game the legal system on marriage were once referred to in earlier circumstances as "scribes and Pharisees, straining at a gnat in order to swallow a camel".
Ah well.
They will have quite a challenging hand to play, once Obama is defeated and the marriage defenders run the table this fall.
The increasing gender neutrality of our laws is responsible for the deplorable feminization of poverty, not to mention the shocking and scandalous victimization of women in the military by their male peers. A society that pretends women are just like men will a society that works to the serious disadvantage of women.
Current law allows the recognition that women are more vulnerable in divorce (after all men can impregnate women, but not vice versa), generally attaches the children of the dissolved marriage to the woman, and assigns parenthood to the husband of the mother. This violates gender neutrality and will ultimately fail if gender differences are forced to become an impermissible consideration in marriage and if “social” parenting replaces biological parenting as the prevailing definition of parenthood. The assumption that marriage is the vehicle that attaches children to biological parents will ultimately fall if the bearing of children is legally separated from the concept of marriage. The state will assume an increasing role in the assignment of children. I recommend Douglas Farrow’s book, Nation of Bastards, for your consideration.
@ 12
Legal definitions are prescriptive.
@ 10
By bringing up polygamy, concubines, etc., Pete is not describing centuries of English common law or centuries of American law or Western European law as known for centuries.
If, on the other hand, marriage is to become anything two (or more) people consent to regardless of tradition, precedent, and democracy, then maybe Pete is describing what marriage could become.
Marriage is defined as one man and one woman as defined by we the people at the ballot box not we the corporation or big business.
'There is nothing inappropriate about corporations working for social justice and taking a strong stand for protecting the families of their employees and customers.'
It's called lobbying, and just to make a point, religious organizations and NOM have exactly the same privilege of working toward those goals.
Peters drew attention to Starbuck's, which not only issued a public statement saying that redefining marriage is one of their "core values," but which has also filed an Amicus brief to try to get state laws protecting marriage between one man and one woman struck down.
This is why we dump Starbucks and fight the other corporations. They have decided that the people who are their customers should not be allowed to vote on the matter. They wish to deny the citizens of their own home state of Washington the right to vote on this important matter.
Rick @ 17: That is a fabulous analogy, Rick. We should call all the SSMers "termites". They eat away at the foundation over many years until eventually the house falls down. And were they able to speak they would say, " Don't blame us. It's our nature." But you would still try to stop them from destroying your house because it may be their nature but you're entitled to keep your house secure. That's perfect. Termites......