Starbucks and the National Organization for Marriage...

Wait, you mean I didn't change the World in a
single click?!?

Oh man, I’m writing about Starbucks again. For some reason, they just keep popping up on my radar.


This time, it’s the sumofus.org movement to send Starbucks a thank you card for their support of same sex marriage. I started seeing this link popping up on Facebook, shortly after the Kuny links started fading....so yes, Facebook has become our generation’s lazy way of supporting political movements.

This particular movement gave me some doubts. It seemed like a really great way to get a lot of publicity so I figured I would do a bit of research on the topic. Also, just because it’s on Facebook, doesn’t mean it’s true or accurate. I will not believe everything I see on Facebook!!

So here’s the deal; Starbucks added its name to a list of companies that supported a marriage equality bill in the state of Washington. Ultimately though, it was the politicians of Washington State that passed the bill and the governor signed it into law. Thus, without the inevitable backlash of Christian and right wing fundamentalists, the law will take effect June 7th 2012. Currently, same sex relationships have an ‘everything but’ status in the state of Washington; this law simply takes this to the next step, allowing for same sex marriage with all the same rights as heterosexual marriage.

Ultimately, what does it means that Starbucks supported this bill? It’s the same as any group of people supporting a bill. They are not the ones that officially vote on the bill to pass, but senators and other politicians supposedly look to public support to make their decisions.

Really, the issue here is that the National Organization for Marriage(NOM) has decided to target Starbuck’s support of the bill and issue a boycott against the company. The irony is that there are plenty of other major corporations that signed their names in support of the bill, yet Starbucks is the company being targeted. NOM also threatened any republican legislators who voted for the bill by stating that they were willing to spend $250,000 on primary challenges against them. I am assuming that means that come the next election, NOM will throw money into campaigns against those legislators.

How dare Starbucks use their
influence as a corporation to
support same sex marriage!
Only we, as a non-profit
organization, get that right!

So NOM, who is complaining that a corporation can throw their support behind a bill, will use their political influence and money to thwart the re-election of republican legislators who signed this bill. Bill Brown, the president of NOM, was quoted as saying “We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens.” How is a political organization forcing its values on political representatives any different?

I think it’s important to note that NOM is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. This is different than a 501(c)(3) organization in that they can lobby and participate in political legislature. The reason they can do this is because they are an organization that “promotes social welfare”. This also means that they “cannot primarily benefit a private group of citizens”. The question becomes whether or not a group whose mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it” is supporting a private group or not.

When boycotting Google, does that means you have to stop using google as a verb? 

The whole Starbucks boycott is really just one group’s way of fighting for a definition of marriage that only includes one man and one woman. Starbucks became the boycott target because a boycott works well only with a concentrated effort. One company that supported the bill was selected and it happened to be Starbucks. It’s a lot easier to boycott over-priced coffee than it is to boycott Home Depot, Levi's, Amazon.com, Microsoft or even Google.

Ultimately, I did sign the thank you card for Starbucks. I personally support same sex marriage. Even if I didn’t, I would sign the thank you card as a form of anti-support for NOMs scare tactics.



The decision to sign it yourself though....well, that’s up to you.

 

A few thoughts on Rick Santorum.

I have been wanting to throw my two cents in on the whole Rick Santorum thing. I have been thinking about what form this should take. In 10th grade English, we had to write a satire, after having read In The Pond by Ha Jin. I chose to write my satire about John Ashcroft. I wrote it as a debate, which completely devolved into me just taking cheap shots at him by the end of my 5 page masterpiece. I honestly have no idea if it was really any good, but I thought it was hilarious.

The fact that I chose something political to write about, is rather odd, considering that I am not very political. It’s just that I don’t live under a rock, so I do hear about major things in politics, especially really out there political characters. Think Sarah Palin. When I hear about people like that, I can’t help but be filled with hate for their idiocy. Oddly enough, all of these political characters happen to be conservative.

I don’t define myself as a Democrat but I am extremely liberal when it comes to social issues. I am so un-political that I don’t even know what to call myself. I was registered as an Independent, until the state of Maryland did away with that and now I am just unassociated. I guess that’s what I am. Unassociated.

I also happen to be a feminist. I know people have this stereotype they associate with that word and it’s almost always negative. Like everyone who is a feminist is a radical, hairy-legged psychopath. I believe in this crazy idea that women should have the right to vote and get paid the same as men. Ridiculous, right? Believing in these things doesn’t mean I can’t shave my armpits or that I have to have dreads. I wear bras instead of burning them.

Who ever made this really gets me. Taken from this site.

 My radical political leanings towards feminism and social equality means that people like Rick Santorum make my Hate-O-Meter go off the charts.


I’d like to share an excerpt from Rick Santorum’s book, It Takes a Family. I added a few comments.

So what is the liberal definition of freedom? It is the freedom to be and to do whatever we want- freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice, freedom without limits (with the obligatory caveat that you can’t hurt anyone else directly). What then, is the conservative definition of freedom? Freedom to choose only from a few, pre-selected choices?
But someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom, or as I like to say, “No-Fault Freedom” (all the choice, none of the responsibility). When I listen to the rock group U2’s latest hit “Vertigo” which criticizes the dizzying culture surrounding us, a chill goes through me when Bono sings (Are you and Bono really on a first name basis?), in a satanic voice, “All of this, all of this can be yours-just give me what I want and no one gets hurt.” Thank you for clarifying that he said that line in a ‘satanic’ voice. Way to throw a pop culture reference in there, it shows you can really connect with the younger generation that...listens to U2. Right.

No one gets hurt? Believers in No-Fault Freedom turn a blind eye to the damage such a notion of freedom causes not to this or that individual but to society as a whole. We have sexual freedom; and the resulting debasement of women, mental illness, and an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases causing infertility, cancer, even death. Yes, this is what happens when you allow women to have sexual freedom, they turn into sluts and everyone gets AIDS and dies.
Adults have freedom to divorce (No-Fault) when it suits them: and too many children end up being scarred for life. Divorce scars children. It is something they can never recover from. In fact, anytime someone mentions the D word around me, I curl up in a ball and start rocking back and forth muttering ‘Mommy and Daddy still love me’ over and over.
This is but a taste of the collateral damage inflicted on society, families, and individuals by No-Fault Freedom.

Another quote from his book:

For some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.

Apparently, women who pursue careers outside of the home are buying into the lie that their success can only be measured by their career. He claims that families can get by on a single income. Granted, his wife quit her job in nursing to be a stay at home mom and take care of their seven children, but not all of us earn upwards of $900,000 a year.


So basically, divorce is bad, sex is bad and people can’t handle the freedom to make their own decisions. Sounds like an awesome platform to run on, when attempting to become the leader of the free world.

Ok, so here’s a dude who thinks that we can’t make decisions for ourselves, that we need someone telling us how to live our lives. No wonder he’s Catholic. Gosh, if I didn’t have the bible telling me what I can and can’t do, I would just be a crackhead living on the streets, selling my body for dope.

Clearly, I want someone running this country who thinks that I can’t handle decision making. What that ultimately means is he will take away all decision making power of the average citizen, thinking that he knows best. Clearly, he is such a roll model to us all, I mean, have you seen the news recently? His poor record of charitable giving, calling President Obama a snob for wanting everyone to have the opportunity for higher education, his extremely conservative views on birth control and women’s rights are all issues that have been in the news lately. I suppose if you believe you are the ‘underdog’ of the campaign, no news is bad news and maybe being controversial is helping keep his campaign afloat.

Look, he's such a snob he was
made into art!

Imagine though, if he has the nerve to call President Obama a ‘snob’, what will he say about other world leaders? Right now he’s just some ex-senator and a presidential hopeful. What happens if he becomes the president of the United States and he flippantly calls the Queen of England a ‘bitch’? Would that be enough to spark World War III?

Personally, if Rick Santorum called me a bitch, I’d take it as a compliment.