NOM BLOG

The Starbucks Appreciation Day That Wasn't

 

An Los Angeles Times blog notes that the planned counter-protest to the wildly successful Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day started-off weak:

Gay marriage activists had a vision: Tuesday would be their clarion call for consumers to reject Chick-fil-A and its president’s comments against same-sex unions, instead crowding into Starbucks and other more sympathetic companies.

Though its still early in the day, National Marriage Equality Day – originally known as National Starbucks Appreciation Day before organizers broadened the scope – seems to be getting a mostly mild start.

A Facebook profile created for the event by Equally Wed, a lesbian and gay wedding magazine, shows more than 34,000 people signed up to attend. But a photo page populated by submissions from supportive consumers had fewer than 20 images just before noon on the East Coast.

... Compare that with Chick-fil-A  Appreciation Day last week, which was launched by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. The event, inspired by comments from Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy backing the “biblical definition of the family unit," created traffic jams, out-the-door lines and record sales for the chicken chain. More than 670,000 people signed up on Facebook to attend.

A pro-SSM blogger in NYC had to admit by mid-day that the event wasn't going as planned, writing:

"...Either we've become too complacent about this issue or the event just wasn't organized and promoted with enough vehemence.

And now it seems like we may have lost this particular battle, especially since the haters cagily framed their actions as being pro-freedom-of-speech."

Today it appears the Starbucks Appreciation Day was a complete bust. This marks the second failed attempted to counter-protest the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day last week (the first attempt was the failed Chick-fil-A "kiss-in"):

"The Chick-fil-A controversy has left the gay rights movement with the proverbial egg on its face. First it was the ill-fated national “kiss-in.” Then it was Tuesday’s “Starbucks Appreciation Day” – or rather, “National Marriage Equality Day.” Activists were asked to change the name by Starbucks’ execs who were worried about getting filleted in the Chick-fil-A-related melee.

Both counter protests were met with an unexpectedly tepid response from gay rights supporters in contrast to last Wednesday’s record-setting avalanche at Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." -- William J. Kelley of the Washington Times

All of which is a good reason to continue keeping the pressure on Starbucks by helping us get to 50,000 pledges at Dump Starbucks!

73 Comments

  1. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Those who support full civic equality for LGBTs did not need the Starbucks appreciation day to make their point. Support Starbucks garnered over 600,000 pledges, while the NOM-sponsored boycott got somewhere in the tens of thousands, around 40,000, if memory serves. Starbucks shares have been going up during the NOM-sponsored boycott.

  2. AM
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    I find it interesting that Starbucks did not want their company name associated with this event.
    ----
    "..And now it seems like we may have lost this particular battle, especially since the haters cagily framed their actions as being pro-freedom-of-speech."

    No "framing" was necessary. Government officials abused their power by threatening Chick-fil-A because of Dan Cathy's spoken beliefs about marriage.

  3. Denver
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    One day at a time to support Starbucks which has about 12,600 locations as opposed to Chick Fil a which has about 1,600. which business is supporting equality more?

  4. Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Starbucks shares have tanked during the NOM-sponsored boycott.

    It was near $60 a share in March, and last trade was at $45.14, a very significant decline.

    It is fine if you folks do not want to use Starbucks to make your point.

    We will use it to make ours.

    In the end of course the only thing that matters is who wins the election.

    Gay marriage will be law if Obama is reelected.

    Vote accordingly.

  5. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Starbucks shares went way up during the boycott (since April 2012. It stayed up during that whole period. It just went down in August, back to the level of March 2012. Bring back the noisy boycott, and the shares will go up again.

  6. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    I encourage readers not to take NOM's word for it. Just go and check the last year's trend on any financial site and see for yourselves.

  7. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Erratum: The share is back to the January 2012 level, not March (as I accidentally said in my 2nd previous post, but it's on its way back up. Apologies for the error in month when I viewed the graph. Again, readers, please see for yourselves. The peak of the NOM boycott was in the spring, and Starbuck sprang.

  8. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Most likely a hesitancy to spend $$ on an overpriced stimulant, combined with the gut instint that SSM is a facet of facism, created a reluctance to particpate. Put somply, you can't do right by promoting wrong.

  9. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Check out the long term trend in Starbucks shares... $35 a year ago, $25 two years ago. Once NOM launched its boycott last spring, it went way up to $60.

  10. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Very telling that Starbucks execs didn't want their name associated with this foolishness. Shareholders are understandably squawking about their dwindling stock prices.

    The opposition is very adept at creating silly Facebook pages and getting followers to flock there to sign their names, but when it comes to actually following through...well, that's another story.

  11. Leo
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Claude

    Here is what I don't get from your post @ 1:

    If SSR supporters gathered 34, 000 of them to attend a Starbucks ( their spokesperson on gay equality)Appreciation Day, the claim you made that, " Starbucks garnered over 600, 000 pledges( I assume of equality devotees), either those pledges numbers are not creditable, or most of those over 600, 000 pledges are not as devoted as you leave us to believe?
    Looks like you got deceived in your own propaganda..?

  12. Posted August 8, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Now that NOM's boycott has begun to bite, along with the truly incredible Chick Fil A disaster for the gay fascist movement, Starbucks continues to tank.

    Were I a gambler....errr..."investor", I should short at will.

    It's going lower.

    Nothing in the above should be construed as financial advice.

    Yada yada yada yada fine print disclaimer typical Wall Street noise.

  13. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Sadly, my comments are blocked :(

  14. Zack
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    I care not for petitions to dump a company. If people want to shop somewhere fine.

    The chick-fil-a appreciation day was more about supporting free speech which the left has tried vehemetly to suppress. Even Barney Frank said the mayors of Boston and Chicago were wrong on this.

    I don't know where the same-sex marriage debate will end. I am certain however that it will only be recognize by a handful of states and not forced on the rest of the country.

    I will continue to stand by the judeo christian values that this country was founded on and will continue to support Traditional Marriage.

  15. Leo
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Claude

    If you assumed 600,000 equality supporters as Starbucks devotees, but only slight over 1/600,000 were interested in actually showing their appreciate to the company for help sponsoring their #1 project( SSM), is a smack-down, bomb explosion in the faces of your "leaders".

  16. Good News
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    I hear you Barb, your coming through load and clear.

  17. Randy E King
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    @Claude

    You do realize the number of people that enjoyed Chick-fil-a on August 1st was equal to the entire population of Canada?

    Quite telling; don't you think?

  18. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Zack, the same-sex marriage debate will end, as it did in Canada, when same-sex marriage is the law of the land. Since 2005, in Canada, gay rights and religious freedom coexist peacefully (apart from an occasional squirmish that gets settled in the courts). It is mainly a non-issue on the public stage, and only counts for those whose loving committed relationships are recognized and protected under the law. Others are unaffected.

  19. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Claude, I find it amusing that you think the SSM debate in Canada is finished, simply because a few tyrants enacted some unfair laws. Surely, you don't think debate can be squashed so easily. In Canada, SSM is enforced out of fear, not freedom.

  20. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    You should read Canada's Civil Marriage Act of 2005 (simple search). It very concisely affirms the equal right to marry, religious freedom not to solemnize same-sex marriage by churches and clerics who do not believe in marriage equality, and amends the language of relevant laws to include same-sex couples. Elegant and simple text, allowing the peaceful coexistence of LGBT rights with religious freedom.

  21. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    DoE, even Stephen Harper, arch-conservative Prime Minister, has clearly said that he will not reopen the debate and would vote against a repeal. Other parties will not open it. Only a handful of social-conservative backbenchers occasionally make a bit of noise. You are truly misinformed.

  22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Riiiiiight...so, Catholics have nothing left to say, publicly or privately, nor do any other citizens, and your elected leaders are elected for life, the laws are set in stone, and no change to law can ever happen in Canada. I had no idea....

  23. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    DoE. Catholics can say whatever they want and pronounce themselves on policy, privately and publicly. They have freedom of speech and religion. However, they do not hold dominion over government; they are one participant group among others. The Catholic Church cannot impose its dogma over government and secular society. In fact, the hierarchy cannot even control its own flock. In reputable surveys, over 90% of catholic women have admitted using contraception (vs 97% in the general population), even though it goes against Catholic dogma.

  24. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Your claim was that the SSM debate in Canada, is over. You have not demonstrated that the debate is over. But you have gone off on quite a few tangents.

  25. AM
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    "You should read Canada's Civil Marriage Act of 2005 (simple search). It very concisely affirms the equal right to marry... and amends the language of relevant laws to include same-sex couples."

    Including any mention of "natural" parent in family law to accommodate same sex "parents".

  26. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    AM: The same law applies to any couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, where one or both parents are not the "natural" parents. Not a valid argument in the marriage equality debate, since it applies to many other hetero family models.

  27. Zack
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Claude: "when same-sex marriage is the law of the land."

    Same-sex marriage has aboslutely no chance of being recongized in all 50 states. Atleast not legislatively. The only REAL chance the social left has is through the court and even then the chance of the supreme court ruling in favor of the left isn't likely.

    Why do I say it has no chance legislatively? Because it requires 60 votes in the senate to get anything meaningful passed. And in each state(with the exception of colorado) that has a Marriage amendment, support for traditional marriage averages 65-70% of the population with the lowest support being in Michigan, Virginia, Florida and Oregon at about 55-58% respectively.

    That means since the heartland and southern states typically have staunch conservatives representing them, at best a liberal democratic majority would only get barely 50 votes.

    Logistically speaking, no chance of Marriage being redefined legislatively anytime soon.

    And a surpeme court case never puts anything to rest. See Roe v Wade. It's been 50 years and the only reason why it hasn't been overturned is because there aren't enough votes in congress to do so even though most Americans identify as pro-life.

  28. AM
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    No, Claude
    That change was made because the presumption of paternity could not conceivably apply to a lesbian couple. So legal parenthood supplants natural parenthood in the name of equality.

  29. Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Bravo, AM.

  30. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Legal parenthood is what counts before the law. There is a legal case made before a court or tribunal to establish legal parenthood. If the facts of a case convince a judge that, in that particular case, biological parenthood should prevail, the court will act accordingly.

  31. AM
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Claude @24
    You make an excellent case for opposing the redefinition of marriage. Thanks!

  32. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Claude makes an excellent point. Before the SSM idea, society naturally accorded parental rights via biology, as natural and logical. But, because SSM depends on the government turning a blind eye to logic, and because marriage laws are intrinsically tied to family law, children become, in essense, a ward of the state, and parents and children are assigned kinship via the whims of the state. The state takes unto itself powers not granted by the people, and becomes the tyrant, making the people serve it, as opposed to common sense laws based on the Constitution, which serve the people. SSM is simply a strong-armed facet of facism.

  33. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    I'm indeed opposing the redefinition of marriage included in Canadian law, where I reside with my American husband. Marriage equality is recognized under the law here... and it will expand in the US (it will just take longer).

  34. M. Jones
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    @Claude, same-sex friendships are not marriages, never have been and never will be. You just can't change natures law, no matter how much you wish it so.

  35. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Our committed loving relationship on which we founded a family unit recognized before the law is not a simple "friendship". We are recognized as a married couple by our families, our friends, our colleagues, our employers and all institutions in this country. It's not a wish, it's a fact.

  36. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    But Claude, you haven't explained why your loving, committed relationship should be recognized as a marriage, and why the equally loving and committed relationships, which form families (such as loving siblings and parents/children), shouldn't also be defined as marriages. What sets your relationship apart as unique from all others, such that it qualifies as marriage?

  37. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Nor has Claude adequately explained why groups of loving, consenting adults shouldn't also have their relationships recognized by their friends, colleagues, and employers, and all institutions in this country.

  38. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    DoE: In response to your comment #30, the reason why our relationships and marriages are not fully recognized in the US, is because there is occult money being poured into organizations like NOM to buy elections and referendum initiatives, and because the US religious fundamentalist right has been given so much power since Reagan... but the tide is turning.

  39. Andy King
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    @DoE

    They're two committed adults, unrelated by blood, who want to enter into a marriage. I'm not really sure what about it is confounding you so. Is it government's role to check to make sure your genitals interlock before granting you a marriage license?

    Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden have elected to say that it is not, and last I checked none of them have plunged into the sea or caught the plague.

    Risking moderation purgatory, here's a link for you.
    http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml

    Excepting Sweden and Argentina (which does not appear on the list), every single one of those countries has a lower divorce rate than the United States, yet you like to call yourself "pro-marriage".

    Aside from that, whenever a SSM supporter points out that nobody on your side would advocate testing would-be spouses for fertility prior to their being issued a marriage license, I can't help but feel like I'm hearing a broken record of a reply; even if a man and a woman can't specifically procreate, the "spirit" of procreation is still present, or something to that effect. They encourage others to act like them in the spirit of procreation.

    But a same-sex marriage is identical to a heterosexual one, except for a single chromosome. Do you think that heterosexual couples are incapable of witnessing a gay union and experiencing empathy for the couple? Because I can promise you that at the last gay wedding I attended, the majority of attendees were heterosexual and happy.

  40. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    "DoE: In response to your comment #30, the reason why our relationships and marriages are not fully recognized in the US, is because there is occult money being poured into organizations like NOM to buy elections and referendum initiatives, and because the US religious fundamentalist right has been given so much power since Reagan... but the tide is turning."

    So now, Claude conflates religious conservatives with the occult. And, that's his answer as to why marriage should be neutered.

  41. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Andy, howsoever long-winded you may blow, you will never convince the average citizen who possesses common sense, that there is no difference between and opposite-sexed union, and a same-sex union. Even a child can tell the difference. Why is it so difficult for you? No matter how many countries make SSM legal, it will still never fundamentally be the same as the public union of a man and a woman. You just can't legislate sameness when there are fundamental differences based on basic biology. Sorry friend.

  42. Amused
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    I support gay marriage. (I think gay people should be just a miserable as the rest of us.... if they want to)

    I support the right to oppose (using legal means) gay marriage. The dominant religion in this country follows a book that preaches against it. And we are 'supposed' to be able to freely express our views.

    I like Starbucks..... good coffee.
    I like Chick-Fil-A....good food.

    If there was one of each, close enough to each other to make it work (not were I live), I would have a chicken sandwich and a Latte for lunch tomorrow.

    And I would wish good well to all in both locations that I purchased from.

    Now! I assume that both sides HATE ME!

    FLAME AWAY!

  43. Steve
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    I've been hearing for the last twelve years that all the trends show that Americans have turned the corner on the definition of marriage, and that in the near future, we're finally going to see same-sex marriage enshrined into law not by a court order or by legislative cram-through, but by individuals who, with their vote, say the nuclear family as an ideal is dead, but those pipedreams of the ssm mob just never seem to happen as predicted, do they??
    What is the count again? 0 for 32? Looks like a winner to me.

  44. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    DoE. Your answer #33 is even below your par. You're loosing it. Occult electoral funding is well known to mean funding with money that is not disclosed in accordance with electoral law, and NOM funding has not been disclosed in accordance with electoral law. Courts have rendered decisions against NOM, but NOM continues to defy the law.

  45. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Andy... it felt a bit lonely here by myself. Your post was very articulate and informative.

  46. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Steve, Minority rights should never be decided at the ballot box, during heated elections, but debated in representative democracy institutions set in the constitution. If rights were decided at the ballot box, African Americans still would be denied basic rights and the south would still be segregated. But, since ballot initiatives are a reality in several states, our side has to roll up their sleeves and work for victory.

  47. Andy King
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    @Claude

    Absolutely no problem. I try to do my part, and your posts are always a breath of fresh air as well. Very common-sense, which I appreciate after being subjected to several meandering paragraphs (my own often included).

    @DoE

    "you will never convince the average citizen who possesses common sense, that there is no difference between and opposite-sexed union, and a same-sex union. Even a child can tell the difference."

    You're correct. When I said that there was "no difference", I was mistaken; I only meant no difference in terms of what constitutes a marriage.

    Of course a child can tell the difference between a gay union and a heterosexual union. They can also tell the difference between a black couple, a white couple, and an interracial couple. And there is absolutely no judgement on their part between any of those unions until someone displays judgement for them to witness and emulate.

    As for why it's so difficult for me to emulate the judgement you so eagerly display against your fellow human beings, what can I say? I guess I'll just have to live with myself.

    As for your assertion about it never being fundamentally the same, well, you're entirely entitled to that opinion, outdated as it will become.

  48. Stefan
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Claude, don't worry, we're with you ( coming from a straight married male). It's just that the moderators keep us out. I'd give it up though, you'll never convince these people. They'll never get it. Ever.

  49. Posted August 8, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    Same sex marriage was never a civil rights issue.

    It took the cooperation of compassionate Christians (and others) to make it one.

    How was this accomplished?

    The Trojan Horse called "civil unions".

    One has no choice but to admire the brilliance of the ploy.

    http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-civil-unions-destroyed-marriage-in.html

  50. Claude
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    I know, Stefan. I'm usually blocked (i.e. censored) by the moderators, but their webmaster must be on vacation. It's good, once in a while, to put some well reasoned arguments against NOM's position on their home turf.

  51. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    except that, Claude, the minority you refer to already enjoys all the same marriage rights as the majority. If not, please produce documentation naming and singling out "gay" people for marriage prohibition.

  52. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:04 am | Permalink

    @Claude

    Absolutely no problem. I try to do my part, and your posts are always a breath of fresh air as well. Very common-sense, which I appreciate after being subjected to several meandering paragraphs (my own often included).

  53. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:04 am | Permalink

    @DoE

    "you will never convince the average citizen who possesses common sense, that there is no difference between and opposite-sexed union, and a same-sex union. Even a child can tell the difference."

    You're correct. When I said that there was "no difference", I was mistaken; I only meant no difference in terms of what constitutes a marriage.

    Of course a child can tell the difference between a gay union and a heterosexual union. They can also tell the difference between a black couple, a white couple, and an interracial couple. And there is absolutely no judgement on their part between any of those unions until someone displays judgement for them to witness and emulate.

    As for why it's so difficult for me to emulate the judgement you so eagerly display against your fellow human beings, what can I say? I guess I'll just have to live with myself.

    As for your assertion about it never being fundamentally the same, well, you're entirely entitled to that opinion, outdated as it will become.

  54. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink

    (trying to respond to Daughter of Eve, but it appears the moderator may not be on vacation after all.)

  55. Andy King
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:19 am | Permalink

    @DoE

    if the moderators decide to publish my response to 34, that'll be their prerogative I suppose. Let's pretend like I made an impassioned and reasoned argument and it made no difference.

    To your latest response, "please produce documentation" yada yada. This is the same tired trope I keep hearing, and I'm getting a little miffed of debunking it every time. The joke is that marriage is already equal, because all Americans have the same right to marriage; that is, they can all marry someone of the opposite sex! No discrimination here!

    This is a ludicrous non-argument that does not merit any consideration in any context. Blacks and Whites under segregation had the same rights: the right to use facilities designed for their race's use, and the right to intermarry someone of their own race. If you're going to get upset that I'm "conflating sexual orientation with race", please, look past the fact that I'm using race as an example and understand that what I'm actually doing is dismantling your assessment that we already have equal rights.

    I have the right to marry a man. I do not have the right to marry the woman I love. I do not have the right to grow old with a partner of my choice regardless of what my neighbors or -you- think of me. I do not have the right for the federal government to recognize my relationship on the same standing as yours. Unless you view love as absolutely immaterial to marriage could you possibly contend that I have the same rights as you.

    So which is it: is Marriage a loving union between two adults seeking to become whole and raise a loving family should they so choose, or is it a cold contract where love has no part and nobody should be upset if they don't get to take part?

  56. John
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    We'll never get it?

    Prove to us that a father can be a mother, and a mother can be a father. Show us why wanting the optimum combination for a child (a mother and a father) is wrong. Show us how it is possible that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is anywhere close to being the same as the alternative. Oh, and show us also why gays are the only group of people that demand so called equality, but every other type of relationship..polygamist, incestial, etc, are excluded.

    Fact is, YOU don't get it. And until you are to understand that men and women are different and understand what the TRUE meaning of marriage and that mend and women BOTH make the two halves into the whole, then you never will. You redefine marriage, you destroy it.

  57. Sophianova
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    Shouldn't a bisexual person be allowed to legally marry two people, one man and one woman?

  58. M. Jones
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    There is no minority right to friendship psuedo marriage that I'm aware of. The purpose of marriage is to unite the two great halves of humanity involving opposite genders who have a great likely hood of producing offspring. Its a centuries old institution called marriage, not same-sex psuedo marriage. In fact, the federal district court in Hawaii just upheld the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Their is no civil right to friendship or sibling so called marriages.

  59. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    John, many studies have shown that alternative family models work, whether these are by choice or by fate. NOM's Maggie Gallagher raised her child alone, and he's a succesful young man. There are several cases of same-sex parents who provide a loving and nurturing environment in which to raise kids. Sadly, there are also parents of all kinds (hetero, same-sex, single parent) that are either negligent or abusive. No single model prevails, and the fact is well documented, if you care to read a variety of credible sources, not only what NOM says.

  60. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Jones, whatever you think or say, I know my marriage is REAL and is not a mere friendship. We are in a committed and loving relationship. If you take the time to get to know a same-sex family unit, you will understand the difference. Otherwise, your words are empty, uninformed and a rhetorical game.

  61. Fitz
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Claude

    It seems you are playing the rehtorical games. Marriage has a specific meaning beyond a romantic realtionship envolving "sex".

    It is your side that decided to co-opt a very specific word that denotes a very specific instituion. Presumably you did this to try and capture its prestige for same-sex relationships.

  62. Fitz
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Claude (writes)

    "John, many studies have shown that alternative family models work, whether these are by choice or by fate"

    Your use of the word "work" is rather abtuse. Orphanages "work" as well as foster care 'works'.

    However, as far as social science goes, we have a consensus in the field that the intact natural married family is the gold standard in standard measures of child outcomes.

    This is established fact and extends well beyond child outcomes into benifits of traditional marriage to the men & woman involved and society as a whole.

    Same-sex "marriage" and childrearing is to early in its development to have developed a consensus in the field.

  63. AM
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Andy King writes:
    "Excepting Sweden and Argentina (which does not appear on the list), every single one of those countries has a lower divorce rate than the United States, yet you like to call yourself "pro-marriage".

    Lower divorce rates are insufficient evidence to claim a healthy marriage culture. If people are not bothering to marry in the first place, that too, would lead to lower rates of divorce.

  64. Ash
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Great posts, AM.

    And don't tell me that SSMers are now attempting to claim that enacting ssm lowers the divorce rate! Whenever one mentions that a country with ssm has burgeoning unwed childbearing, and other symptoms of a falling marriage culture, SSMers are quick to say, "correlation doesn't mean causation." Now they're trying to say that ssm causes a lower divorce rate; not only making a statement of causation, but, as AM aptly noted, misusing statistics.

    AM, you are also right that Claude doesn't even know that he made an argument against ssm. If ssm requires that the government not grant an automatic privilige to natural parenthood, then that's all the more reason for us to oppose it. The fact that he's comfortable with courts deciding parentage in each case and not necessarily privileging a mother's biological connection to her own child goes to show how insane SSMers can become in their pursuit of gay supremacy.

    *No* SSMer was able to meaningfully address DoE's blood-relative question. Apparently, ascertaining whether a couple's "genitals [can] interlock" is much more burdensome than finding out whether they are blood-related. So, based on that shallow (and false) reasoning, the gender requirement should be ditched, but not consanguinity considerations.

  65. Claude
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Ash, it's not a causation argument, between divorce rate and marriage equality. It's just plain statistical observations, illustrating that marriage equality does not harm marriage. I haven't made up the numbers, that also show higher divorce rate in Bible belt states.

    I stand by my comment that legal parenthood is not automatically biological parenthood. This is true regardless of the existence of marriage equality. Are you telling me that abusive parents should not lose their rights once they abuse a child? This is only one example.

    Signing off now. My husband and I are going to do some chores and shopping with my elderly Mom. That's what's next on my gay agenda...

  66. Posted August 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Claude: bless you for taking care of your Mom. It is a good and righteous thing, and I am sorry that we must disagree on pseudo-marriage.

  67. Ash
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    @Claude,

    "It's just plain statistical observations, illustrating that marriage equality does not harm marriage. I haven't made up the numbers, that also show higher divorce rate in Bible belt states."

    You know what they say, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." A statistic showing a higher divorce rate for a place where more marriages take place in general should not be construed to mean that conservatives divorce more. That's like saying eating ice cream causes crime, because crime levels go up as ice cream eating goes up; although the real issue that the crimes levels rise during the summertime, when law-abiding people are more likely to eat ice cream. And, as AM noted, if people are *marrying less* and thus divorcing less, then we can't really say that marriage is OK in that particular jurisdiction.

    "Are you telling me that abusive parents should not lose their rights once they abuse a child?"

    We're talking about the state determining who is a parent, and the preservation of privileges for biological parenthood. When a biological parent's rights are terminated because they are abusive, that is a *very* serious thing; it's not something taken lightly. State officials must go through a lot to terminate parental rights. The termination of parental rights for exceptional cases of child abuse should not be used as a justification for the institutionalized nullification of parental rights for everyone. The status of all natural parents as natural parents should not be debased because, on rare and horrible occasions, the state must terminate a natural parent's parental rights.

    But we all know that the "abusive parents" example is a red herring. As AM noted, the recognition and privileging of biological parenthood must be eliminated because, in this regard, same-sex couples cannot be "equal" to marriages.

  68. Posted August 9, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Ash #54:

    Bravo.

  69. AM
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Ash
    Yeah, Claude's comment was revealing. :-)

    And as you noted, his arguments are rife with strawmen, red herrings, etc.

  70. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Good stuff, Ash.

  71. NS
    Posted August 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Claude, don't know if you will come back to this page, but I just wanted to say, regarding your very first post, that is where you and LGBT reps start out with the wrong premise. This is NOT an issue of "civic equality" as you claim, as LGBT couples are already afforded protection of their civil rights under the law as domestic partnerships. They will gain NO FURTHER civil/civic rights by the redefinition of the term marriage, therefore it is not any "civic equality" issue, it is just another way to undermine the religious and free speech freedoms of the rest of Americans who don't happen to conform to your view of the issue. If you redefine the term you can then accuse (and the LGBT community ALREADY does this) anyone who does not agree with your view of bigotry and hate crimes. You will have thus criminalized their religious and free speech freedoms they now enjoy, and gained no further "civic equality" but lessoned theirs.

  72. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Claude said: "I stand by my comment that legal parenthood is not automatically biological parenthood."

    In Canada, I suppose, you might be reflecting the train of thought that flows from the anti-marriage SSM idea.

    However, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity stands against your stand on this.

    You are aware, I guess, that this is one of the most vigorously enforced legal presumption in our legal tradition. It is highly reliable.

    Even where it is challenged through formal court procedures, it is highly reliable. It is more reliable than the unwed presumption of paternity -- even though both legal presumptions share the same two-sexed sexual basis.

    You will note, of course, that even a vigorously enforced and well-reasoned legal presumption can be challenged -- on a case-by-case basis. But the starting place is the sexual basis for presuming the man has impregnated the woman and she and he have pro-created (and thus co-created) their child together.

    The marriage law in this regard especially is reasonable. It is not totalitarian. But perhaps you'd expect the law to achieve human perfection? If you rely on the typical pro-SSM argumentation that has been used in Canada to impose SSM, then, you will invoke rules of argumentation on this that belie a totalitarian impulse on your part.

    Please respond substantively and reveal your thinking more clearly.

    Thanks.

  73. Chairm
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Andy King you have shot yourself in the foot.

    You said: "I have the right to marry a man. I do not have the right to marry the woman I love. I do not have the right to grow old with a partner of my choice regardless of what my neighbors or -you- think of me. I do not have the right for the federal government to recognize my relationship on the same standing as yours."

    You agreed that you have the same right to marry as every other woman. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. So your complaint lies elsewhere. That is the fact of the matter.

    And you revealed that to be so:

    "Unless you view love as absolutely immaterial to marriage could you possibly contend that I have the same rights as you."

    Why "absolutely immaterial"?

    The prototypical sibling relationship is loving. Likewise with the relationships in the prototypical polygamous and polyamorous arrangements. Perhaps you meant to categorize your idea of love as superior to all other types of love?

    In any case, love -- of whatever kind -- is not a legal trump card for those who are ineligible to marry. If you knew the law -- even on the most basic level -- you would accept this as a fact.

    So, unless you are going to demand that love is a trump card for those ineligible, you really have not made a good case for your view on this.

    Then you go ahead and shoot your other foot:

    "So which is it: is Marriage a loving union between two adults seeking to become whole and raise a loving family should they so choose, or is it a cold contract where love has no part and nobody should be upset if they don't get to take part?"

    False dichotomy.

    But it does reveal that you rely on absolutes. No ground between extremes. Your way or no way.

    Right? But that directly contradicts your utter dependence on a love requirement that does not exist in the law. You are focussed on the law, right?

    Or perhaps not.

    You said something about "seeking to become whole". Does the government or the law do this seeking or do the participants who you have in mind do this seeking and the government does the magic trick that makes them whole?

    If they do not achieve what they seek, do the participants remain unmarried or is it the mere seeking that counts? If the government does not guarantee that this seeking achieves the end you claimed, then, does that nullify that as the governmental purpose in licensing this arrangement?

    I suspect you mean that this seeking to become whole applies regardless of government treatment. Right? It is not a requirement for eligibility. It does not depend on a license. it depends on the participants themselves.

    Please clarify.

    If you mean that, then, how can two persons of the same sex become "whole"? I mean, if it is achievable, then, it might be sought. But if it is not achievable, then, pursuing it would be a fool's errand, surely.

    A husband and wife enter the social institution of marriage (which is a coherent whole and not a bunch of bits and pieces privately decided) and form a comprehensive relationship (this is what becoming whole means according to the marriage idea) and that necessarily entails bodily union.

    Bodily union is two-sexed, not one-sexed, as coital relations is the manifestation both of the consummation and of the renewal of the comprehensive relationship known as marriage.

    Comprehensive union is more than sexual behavior, of course, but we are sexually embodied beings and for a human relationship to be comprehensive it necessarily entails bodily union. There is no possibility of bodily union in an all-male or an all-female scenario.

    You might aspire to mimic that which you can not achieve with another woman, but to require the government, on behalf of all of society, to prop-up such a fiction would be highly unreasonable. Nonetheless you might imagine such a government imposed legal fiction would be benign.

    Yet to get to that you have attacked the marriage idea itself. The SSM idea is in direct conflict with the marriage idea. It is a rejection of marriage. And so merging SSM with marriage would mean replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea and that, in turn, means a governmental intervention very hostile to marriage as a social institution of civil society.

    So which is it: the arbitrary imposition of an anti-marriage measure or the justified reaffirmation of the marriage idea?