Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Factoring corporate support for equality into returning to the ballot

Uncategorized

By Adam Bink

I’ve been following this one loosely, as the American Family Association is asking their members to boycott Home Depot because Home Depot “has chosen to sponsor and participate in numerous gay pride parades and festivals,” thereby destroying the fabric of America, or something.

PFAW reports on the recent Home Depot board meeting at which the AFA presented Home Depot with their petition and evidently were turned away:

Home Depot has an 85/100 rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.

Many of us here debate going back to the ballot in 2012 and recall the Manchester Hyatt boycott and other efforts to expose those who funded or otherwise supporting discrimination (or, in the case of companies like Apple, supported No On 8). As we examine a possible return to the ballot, taking stock of what our friends in the corporate world with deep pockets are doing is another part of the puzzle.

28 Comments

  • 1. AnonyGrl  |  June 4, 2011 at 3:33 am

    Here is a story about 70 United Methodist ministers in Minnesota who have said they support marriage equality.

    http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/06/16828/

    I particularly liked the comment…

    1. There is a Methodist church near me that has a sign out front that says ‘Inclusive’ — I took this as code for ‘gay friendly’. Kudos to them for their progress.

    Comment by Gary (NJ) — June 4, 2011 @ 11:34 am

    Inclusive. What a welcoming word. The word 'exclusive' is thrown around a lot, and is used to mean fancy, expensive, or highly desirable. In fact, what exclusive means is keeping some people out. Excluding them. Creating second class citizens, if you will.

    When marriage become exclusively the right of opposite sex couples, that word becomes much less pleasant.

    So indeed, kudos to churches using the word 'inclusive' to mean 'we truly welcome everyone!'

  • 2. sweetleopardess  |  June 4, 2011 at 3:52 am

    What great news that Home Depot is ignoring AFA. Sounds like Home Depot deserves to have their HRC rating raised!

  • 3. Nyx  |  June 4, 2011 at 4:17 am

    LOL, I went to YouTube to read comments left by viewers and found the poor AFA not getting much support.

  • 4. Linda  |  June 4, 2011 at 5:17 am

    I'm feeling extremely dense, here; I feel like I'm missing the point Adam is trying to make. But I still don't understand why we would put our rights up for a vote BEFORE we even know the outcome of the prop 8 trial. I just don't get that. And, in my opinion, once we put our rights up to a popular vote we can no longer insist that we are not bound by the majority in civil rights issues.

    Sure, it would be very satisfying to take this to the ballot and win. It would be fun to point to our success and say, 'See; the people voted and we are listening!' But we are then bound by that same reasoning when the people vote against us later on.

    It just doesn't make sense to jump the gun on this. We need to be patient and see the prop 8 thing through. We have an incredible legal team working for us; let's not dillute all that they have and will accomplish on our behalf.

  • 5. wayne  |  June 4, 2011 at 6:06 am

    …..after hearing the AFA's drivel and its' desire to force their religion on our government and Constitution and after appreciating Home Depot's position and support of equal rights, I pledge to buy everything I can at Home Depot. I regret they don't sell groceries!

  • 6. Sam in SF  |  June 4, 2011 at 6:12 am

    I have to agree with Linda… if we repeal Prop H8 at the ballot box, they could effectively drop the case against it in the courts. If we dont see this through, arent we effectively back to the drawing board if another law is passed in the future? Arent we all better off as a community if the SCOTUS gets a chance to rule all such laws unconstitutional, therefore invalidating them all in one fell swoop. I for one would not like to worry whether my rights are going to be taken away sometime in the future when the NOM nutjobs drag a majority back to the polls like scared little sheeple. I hope everyone has an amazing weekend ;)

  • 7. Sagesse  |  June 4, 2011 at 6:39 am

    Hartzler: Gay Marriage Is Like Incest, Letting Three-Year Old Children Drive

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hartzler-ga

  • 8. jpmassar  |  June 4, 2011 at 7:06 am

    @Sam

    I for one would not like to worry whether my rights are going to be taken away sometime in the future

    You prefer to worry that the US Supreme Court will rule that you are 2nd class citizen, without a fundamental right to marry, and that that ruling will be effectively un-overturnable for a generation or more?

    Have you sat down and seriously considered the possibility that the Supreme Court will issue an unfavorable ruling, and the chance of that happening given the court's makeup?

    I'm not saying there isn't any argument for waiting for SCOTUS to rule, but you have to consider the ramifications of a negative ruling.

  • 9. Linda  |  June 4, 2011 at 9:06 am

    @jpmassar–I understand your point. And yes, that is a scary scenario…the SCOTUS ruling against us. I guess that was the chance we were willing to take when we got behind this whole legal challenge to prop 8.

    I know very little, if anything, about the legal process. My eyes cross whenever I try to read the court briefs…or even the explanation of the court briefs. But I do know that Olsen and Boies are about the best legal team we could ever wish for. And I also know that they willingly took on this case; so they must believe there is a good chance of winning all the way to the SCOTUS. I choose to trust their judgement. They both have pretty good track records.

  • 10. Amazing news.  |  June 4, 2011 at 9:52 am

    General Casey, and Robert Gates, posted an official U.S. Army video talking about the implementing the repeal of DADT. Casey specifically states the following: "The intent of the training is for you to understand how the repeal of DADT will be implemented, not it's merits." Law is very powerful!

    http://www.army.mil/dadt/

  • 11. Sagesse  |  June 4, 2011 at 10:31 am

    70 Methodist Clergy Agree to Wed Gay Couples

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/70-methodist-cl

  • 12. Sagesse  |  June 4, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Mayor to lead D.C. voting rights contingent in Pride Parade

    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/06/04/mayor-t

  • 13. jpmassar  |  June 4, 2011 at 10:45 am

    @Linda

    You have some good arguments. So let's get concrete. Suppose somehow we could know that there was a 50% chance of winning at the SCOTUS, and 50% chance of a really bad outcome. How would you proceed?

    Suppose we also somehow knew that there is a 75% chance of SCOTUS saying DOMA, Section III is unconstitutional, and that the timeframe for a decision would be similar.

    Would you then kill the Prop 8 case in favor of the DOMA cases (which would allow same-sex couples to get married and have federal recognition but they would have to travel to a state that recognized same-sex marriage).

  • 14. Linda  |  June 4, 2011 at 11:36 am

    @jpmassar–Good questions. When DOMA, Section III, is found to be unconstitutional then I would be able to justify going to the voters. But right now I feel like we have a really good plan already in play; it just doesn't feel right to me to preempt that with another move. It seems to me that each one dillutes the other. If we go to the ballot it could be construed as a lack of confidence on our part in our legal position, and that could have a negative impact on our 'on the fence' voters. If I (and many of us) are questioning the timing on this, then those whose votes we are depending on may also. Judge Walker did an incredible job in formulating his opinion. Olson and Boies are two of the best, nationally, at arguing and winning cases. I think it would be short-sighted of us to toss all of that out in favor of a quick fix. I feel, even given your hypothetical scenarios, that the most active position we can take is to wait.

  • 15. Fr. Bill  |  June 4, 2011 at 11:53 am

    I am concerned the DOMA cases will get to SCOTUS before Prop 8. If that happens, the right wing justices won't have a messy lower court record to deal with in decisding the standard of scrutiny to use for the equal protection clause. They can go into their parallel universe and decide it in the ether of their own logic.

  • 16. jc  |  June 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    what? they're boycotting a company who associates themselves with something they don't agree with? why…why those BULLIES! if we're bullies for asking orbitz to reconsider where they advertise because of FOX's ridiculous 'news' reports, well i guess that hat fits just fine on their hypocritical heads as well!

  • 17. Amazing news.  |  June 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    @jpmassar, Will you earn be earning an income by putting the marriage rights of the gays up for a vote?

  • 18. Tasty Salamanders  |  June 4, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Actually speaking of Fox News (@jc), apparently Jon Stewart now has more viewers then all Fox News combined (2.3 million viewers to 1.85 million viewers).

    I think that's important to note while trying to stop companies giving Fox News ad money because the fact their "news" combined can't beat a single comedy news show, shows that ad money could probably be better spent advertising elsewhere.

  • 19. DaveP  |  June 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    @18: And the added bonus is that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show provide better journalism and news coverage than most other sources.

  • 20. Kalbo  |  June 4, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    @jpmassar We've already won the trial. While I have little doubt we'd prevail should the case reach SCOTUS, even if it just stops at the 9th Circuit because of lack of standing, that would put a halt to this referendum and ensure SSM for California and provide a strong reference for other cases. I suspect that may be how it plays out anyway, as much as I wish SCOTUS would get it. State rights are fine, but we really need federal rights, and this is the best possible case/legal team we could hope for.

    Now, if the worst-case scenario occurs and SCOTUS rules against SSM, we're back to where we are now going state-by-state — that's it. It won't invalidate the states that have SSM, and I suspect DOMA will be gone one way or another within a couple years, granting federal rights to SSM regardless of the state one resides (so long as the state you get your license in recognizes it, just like now with various inconsistencies among state marriage statutes).

    So again I say, no popular vote on Prop 8! And realistically, the deep division over this proposal should make even supporters of taking it back to the polls reluctant to do so.

    My 2¢. Take care.

  • 21. Sagesse  |  June 5, 2011 at 12:42 am

    NOM, LifeSiteNews Peddle Obvious Distortion About Adoption Anti-Discrimination Bill

    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201106030014

  • 22. Sagesse  |  June 5, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Do say gay: LGBT sexuality isn't the problem – bigotry is

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/

  • 23. Sagesse  |  June 5, 2011 at 1:19 am

    It's a long list.

    NOM Devotes 20% Of Blog To Non-Marriage Issues In May

    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201106020009

  • 24. Sagesse  |  June 5, 2011 at 1:50 am

    Looking ahead to 2012

    Iowa Caucuses To Force Republican Decision On LGBT Equality

    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201105230013

  • 25. Meagan  |  June 5, 2011 at 5:39 am

    @Tasty Salamanders RE: #18

    Not quite. Bill O'Reilly's show, for example, had 2.8 million viewers, which beats Stewart's 2.3 million. The average for The Daily Show beat the average viewership for the totality of Fox News. You'll still reach more people advertising on The O'Reilly Factor than on The Daily Show.

  • 26. Meagan  |  June 5, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Also, here's the source for that information:

    http://www.politicususa.com/en/jon-stewart-fox-ra

  • 27. Joe  |  June 5, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    @19: "And the added bonus is that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show provide better journalism and news coverage than most other sources."

    From the Daily Show Website:

    "Join Jon Stewart and the Best F#@king News Team Ever as they bring you the news like you've never seen it before — unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."

  • 28. Joe  |  June 5, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    So that says it all – people are more interested in being entertained in the moment than they are as to whats actually going on in the world.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!