NOM’s World is Shrinking

The National Organization (against) Marriage has a history of boycotting companies that publicly support gay marriage, offer partner benefits or advertise to the gay community. But right now they must be looking at moving into a cave and cutting off all contact with the outside world, because America’s business community is rushing to support the side of marriage equality in the current Supreme Court case.

According to the Gay … er, Grey Lady:

This week, Goldman Sachs was one of more than 100 corporations that lodged their support for same-sex marriage in two briefs filed with the Supreme Court. “I think people wanted to attach themselves to what may be the last great civil rights issue of our time,” Mr. Blankfein said.

Even the authors of the briefs seemed surprised by the wave of corporate support. “What’s remarkable is how fast this happened,” Joshua Rosenkranz, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, told me as his brief was about to be filed on Thursday. “When I first started working on this issue, people said gay marriage was an idea whose time hadn’t yet come. Even people in the gay rights community said that. When we started to try to get corporate support, I was a little apprehensive. But I’ve been bowled over. Corporate America is not only already there, but they’re passionate about it. For them, it’s not just a human rights issue, it’s a business imperative.”

All of which leaves NOM with a problem …

  • kessy_athena

    But think of the poor pigeons! Who would inflict NOM on even birds? Wait, lots of birds display homosexual behavior – what if it turns out even the pigeons are gay?

    I have to say that the change in attitudes towards homosexuality in the last few years is really remarkable. I can’t think of the last time I was so pleasantly surprised by the public. And to think, just a few years ago, states all over the country were passing constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage…

    • Revyloution

      One more nail in the coffin of free will, and independent minds. We are all just one collective, responding to stimuli.

      • kessy_athena

        Free will does not mean that individuals have no constraints or influences on their actions at all. Being completely free of constraints or influences is impossible for beings even remotely like humans, and the only sort of being I can think of that would be able to achieve such a state is an omnipotent one, and as has been discussed at length elsewhere, omnipotence is a logically incoherent concept.

      • FO

        We do not respond to stimuli.
        We respond to cash.
        Companies have nothing to gain from gay discrimination.
        They want their employees happy and productive.

        What We The People hadn’t the will to do for compassion, super corporations did for greed.

        • kessy_athena

          Cash is a stimulus. And a disturbing number of the managerial class seem to view workers being happy and productive as being mutually exclusive conditions. Is it just me or does it seem like all the nineteenth century robber barons have been reincarnated? Sometimes I think we’re living in the second Gilded Age.

        • Sunny Day

          Its not all about the employees either. Bigotry is not a good corporate image.
          Who do you want to buy your widgit from, the disapproving guy who’s doesn’t see you as a honorable person and is actively setting up barriers to your happiness, or that other one who’s willing to say screw that noise we’re here to march in your parade and kick down barriers along with you, or the indifferent company who keeps their head down and doesn’t say much of anything either way?

  • David Hart

    Sorry to have to veer off-topic (and I know it’s in a quote and not the blog author’s opinion), but as long as people whose drug of choice is one other than the currently-legal alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are being hauled off by the cops for their pharmacological preferences, then gay equality is not the last great civil rights issue of our time…

    • baal

      Pot smoking is a civil rights issue? I’m all for decriminalization as the harms of that drug don’t rise to the level of the harm caused by pot related arrest and incarceration. If your pharmacological choice is meth, I’d ask you what you’re smoking (but I won’t since I’d know, it’s meth). Meth does all sorts of really bad things to your body and that creates big knock on effects. Ok, that’s 2 drugs…15 billion more to go. I don’t think drug use as a civil right fits nicely into one package.
      Gay equality is much easier to sort out. You don’t have to read many of “oh noes SSM = end of world” posts to figure out that marriage equality will make essentially no difference to anything except improve the quality of life for gays. There is a psychic harm to various so called christians as they have to update what goes on in their heads but (changing your mind hurts) but I’m ok with them having to come to terms with their plain discrimination. Easy positives and huge stretches to see harms.

    • Sunny Day

      People with “pharmacological preferences” are born that way?

      • Elemenope

        It wouldn’t exactly blow my mind. Some people do seem predisposed to seek out particular types of pharmacological experience, and the intensity of that predisposition varies widely.

        • kessy_athena

          Well, I know that there’s a well established genetic component to susceptibility to chemical addiction, but I’m not so sure about a predisposition to seek out drugs in the first place. It would seem to me that that’s mainly about psychology and social influences, at least until the first time the drug hits your system. Although I think a genetic predisposition to the sorts of psychological things that lead people to seek out drugs does seem plausible to me. Perhaps some people have genetic factors that make them more pliable to social pressures, or more apt to be rebellious, or less able to emotionally cope with the sort of society we have today.

          But even if there is a genetic component to such things, I don’t think that would bring drug use to the level of a civil right. Genetics is not destiny, and frankly I find the notion that genetics has anything to do with civil rights to be a bit odd. For example, I don’t see how the genetics of sexual orientation has anything to do with gay rights. LGBT folks have a right to be the way they are because they have a right to privacy, it’s a personal matter, and society has no good reason to intervene, and certainly not a compelling one. On the other hand, sociopathy seems to have a genetic component, and while sociopathy is in no way equivalent to murder, there’s a case to be made that sociopathy leads to a predisposition to murder, which I think is about as strong a link as any plausible genetic predisposition to try drugs. The origins of a behavior have really nothing to do with whether or not society has any business interfering with that behavior. That is entirely about whether or not the behavior is harmful to others or society in general. Insight into the genetic and other factors leading to a behavior will probably help determine the most effective kind of intervention, but not whether there should be intervention in the first place.

  • L.Long

    NOM’s main problem is they think most people really care about this nonsense. When was the lat time you check to see if some company did or did not support ??????whatever???? before buying something???
    The only reason I don’t go to ChickFilet is cuz I don’t like their product. I go to HobbyLobby because they have what I need and there is no other source around. Companies know that most people buy and don’t really care about this stuff.

    • JohnMWhite

      That’s not really true. I know lots of people, all over the political spectrum, who boycott certain places for political or social reasons. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean nobody does. Companies truly believe people care about this stuff – that’s why they get involved. They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, even if corporations are people.

      • kessy_athena

        I think the key words here are “most people.” There are plenty of people who do boycott certain companies for various reasons, but I think there are many more who can’t be bothered. I doubt most people even think about such things unless something gets on the news.

        Of course these sorts of things do effect how much business a company gets, but the question is how much. And that depends a lot on the sort of business in question. For example, a shop carrying high fashion home decor in NYC is going to have much different public relations concerns then a gun shop in some tiny town in rural Alabama. For large companies with a diverse customer base, if they do something to infuriate one set of partisans, they’ll probably be making the opposite partisans love them. And of course a lot of companies don’t really have the sort of competition to make them all that responsive to their customers, and a lot also conduct political activities in ways that aren’t really public.

        But the bottom line is that if people really consistently punished companies for bad behavior, then how are Walmart and De Beers still in business? (Among others.)

  • Verimius

    If the cylinder on the back of the pigeon is supposed to be a message capsule it’s in the wrong place. They are attached to the bird’s leg.