Corporations Get It (Politicians Don’t)

by Stephen H. Miller on February 7, 2012

Oh, those evil corporations. When they’re not oppressing the 99%, they’re … advancing legal equality for gay people. Oh, nevermind.

At the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni writes that several large corporations, including Starbucks, Microsoft, and Amazon, have expressed public support for state initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage. Bruni observes:

“More so than politicians, corporations play the long game, trying to engender loyalty for decades to come, and they’re famously fixated on consumers in their 20s and 30s. They see support for same-sex marriage as a winner, something that will help with employee recruitment as well.”

Along the same lines, JCPenney has hired Ellen DeGeneres as its advertising spokesperson, hoping to project a more hip image to consumers. That’s social change!

More. On his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly defends JCPenney’s hiring of DeGeneres.

{ 4 comments }

Tom Scharbach February 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Corporations Get It (Politicians Don’t)

I understand the need for a catchy tagline, but a more accurate statement might have been “Some Corporations Get It (Some Politicians Don’t)”.

A majority of politicians in California (well, the legislature, anyway), the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Maine, (probably) New Jersey and (soon) Washington clearly “get it” on marriage equality. A majority of politicians in quite a number of other states clearly “get it” on marriage-equivalency, since those states have marriage-equivalent civil unions. A majority of politicians in the House clearly don’t “get it”, given the House vote to defend DOMA. None of the Presidential candidates “get it” on marriage equality, one “gets it” on marriage-equivalency, and, as for the rest, well, I’ll let you do your own analysis. So it’s a mixed bag.

That’s true of corporations, too. Quite a number of corporations “get it” on marriage equality, but most don’t yet, or, if they do, aren’t going public about it.

The good news is that we are making progress, and over time, more and more politicians and corporations are going to embrace marriage equality.

Doug February 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm

Let’s not forget that ‘corporations are people too’. Like most people in this country the tide is turning, or has turned, on the gay marriage issue.

Tom Scharbach February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm

Speaking of politicians who don’t “get it”, look at these statements on today’s Prop 8 ruling:

Governor RNOMey: “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.

Speaker GNOMgrich: “With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States. … Today’s decision is one more example that the American people cannot rest until we restore the proper rule of the judicial branch and bring judges and the Courts back under the Constitution. … Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage. … Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons if its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order. … The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue. An interventionist approach by the Court on marriage will lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the federal judiciary from which it may take generations to recover.

Senator SantorNOM: “Today’s decision by the 9th Circuit is another in a long line of radical activist rulings by this rogue circuit – and it is precisely why I have called for that circuit to be abolished and split up. Marriage is defined and has always been defined as ‘one man and one woman.’ We simply cannot allow 50 different definitions of marriage.

R Marino February 11, 2012 at 1:39 am

I’ve long ago learned to pay no attention to what Bill O’Reilly says. I give as much credibility to Bill O’Reilly as some monkey sitting in a cage. O’Reilly’s notion of being right is talking louder. He doesn’t realize that talking louder only makes him sound more stupid to more people, those hard of hearing.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: