The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

For the record, Boeing is actually pretty good on gay rights, they have strong anti-discrimination policies, have recognized domestic same-sex partnerships for years now.

Perception is reality and right now the perception is that Boeing is so greedy that it's going to purposely screw the survivors of its gay employees out of the benefits they deserve.

Such a tough position might help them a little in the contract negotiation, but their brand and goodwill just took a massive hit (and one that is likely much greater than whatever they hoped to gain by nickle and diming their gay employees).

But does it matter? An individual person isn't really in the market for an airplane so the fact that you think Boeing is scum is pretty meaningless, and I doubt Southwest (probably not a great example - I think they lease most of their planes) is going to consider 'do gay employees' spouses get survivor pension benefits' as opposed to 'how may millions does this plane cost compared to an Airbus plane'. I suppose there might be some people who choose which airline to fly by which type of plane is used, but I've never met one and I'd assume they're in the minority compared to people who choose flights based on price.

Edit: Also, this:

Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

When I was part of SPEEA, I never bothered paying attention to anything about each new contract until it was signed. It's all bs.

Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

Perception *is* reality for things like brand image and goodwill. Boeing's negotiation ploy has hurt both.

It doesn't matter that Boeing might actually have a good record on gay rights. That's because few people actually know that. All the public is hearing now is that Boeing is trying to screw its gay employees to save a buck or two. That is the perception that will stick. That will be the new reality. Even if Boeing eventually relents it will not get a similar positive reputation bump. It will be seen that it was shamed/cajoled into doing the right thing.

I'm sure Boeing's lawyers thought that denying its gay employees benefits was a shrewd negotiating ploy, something low value that they could eventually relent on as long as they got concessions elsewhere. But the fact that we're discussing that tactic here means that it has completely escaped the conference room and Boeing's negotiation bluster has harmed its brand.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Well, no. Perception is not reality. Reality is that nothing has changed for Boeing's gay employees as I write this. Reality is that no-one can currently tell you how the new, as yet un-inked, contract is going to affect employees, gay or otherwise.

My point was to not let arguments over the negotiating table be reflected as reality, because until there's a contract that's accepted by both parties (company and union), everything you hear from both sides is bluster.

Perception *is* reality for things like brand image and goodwill. Boeing's negotiation ploy has hurt both.

It doesn't matter that Boeing might actually have a good record on gay rights. That's because few people actually know that. All the public is hearing now is that Boeing is trying to screw its gay employees to save a buck or two. That is the perception that will stick. That will be the new reality. Even if Boeing eventually relents it will not get a similar positive reputation bump. It will be seen that it was shamed/cajoled into doing the right thing.

I'm sure Boeing's lawyers thought that denying its gay employees benefits was a shrewd negotiating ploy, something low value that they could eventually relent on as long as they got concessions elsewhere. But the fact that we're discussing that tactic here means that it has completely escaped the conference room and Boeing's negotiation bluster has harmed its brand.

Eh. As bilt pointed out, I'm not sure that there's any real damage done to it's brand. It's not exactly a consumer brand whose customer base are motivated by social issues like this.

I also suspect that if there *is* financial damage done by this, it's significantly outpaced by the potential financial gains available via getting a (to the company) agreeable contract signed, with the diminished costs of downsized pensions, cost-shifting of healthcare to the employees, and reduced wage pools that are currently also being talked about in the same breath over the negotiation table.

Jonman wrote:

Eh. As bilt pointed out, I'm not sure that there's any real damage done to it's brand. It's not exactly a consumer brand whose customer base are motivated by social issues like this.

Yes, Bilt and you are likely right that Boeing's customer base won't punish them for this negotiation ploy.

But Boeing also needs to attract and retain the best talent to remain competitive regardless of the sexual orientation of those employees. I'm sure there's quite a few gay Boeing employees who are looking at their employer in a different light now as well as gay engineers, programmers, and other talent Boeing needs who will pass on the organization because of this.

Jonman wrote:

I also suspect that if there *is* financial damage done by this, it's significantly outpaced by the potential financial gains available via getting a (to the company) agreeable contract signed, with the diminished costs of downsized pensions, cost-shifting of healthcare to the employees, and reduced wage pools that are currently also being talked about in the same breath over the negotiation table.

Again, you're likely right.

But Boeing's negotiation bluster over benefits for its gay employees has blown up in its face. We just have to wait and see how bad the damage gets. Considering the inertia of the recent election and the victories for gay marriage proponents, this might not be the year Boeing for to use the benefits of its gay employees as a negotiating chip. If it stays in the news cycle it could get very bad for Boeing.

The more I read about Pastor Rick Warren, the more I wonder if someone should check his academic and ministry credentials.

On last night's Piers Morgan show, Warren said that gay people acting like, well, gay people, was akin to being violent or drinking poison.

WARREN: Here’s what we know about life. I have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act on every feeling. Sometimes I get angry and I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn’t mean I act on it. Sometimes I feel attracted to women who are not my wife. I don’t act on it. Just because I have a feeling doesn’t make it right. Not everything natural is good for me. Arsenic is natural.

Here's the video:

That was bad enough.

Today, we discovered that Warren is either a blithering idiot or is a consummate liar.

WARREN: I never made a single statement on Prop 8 until the week before. In my own church, some members say, “Where do we stand on this?” I released a video to my own members. It was posted all over like it was an advertisement. [...]

HILL: When your have a church of 20,000 people and you have a book that 32 million people have read and that 60 million people have accessed, to say, “I was just giving a message”—

WARREN: You’re exactly right, Marc, and I learned a lesson from that. What I learned from that is that anything I say privately is now public. And I actually learned from that mistake… Everyone took that to mean I was pontificating to the whole world.

HILL: If you could do it again, would you not have made that statement a week before Prop 8?

WARREN: I would not have. I would not have made that statement. Because I wanted to talk to my own people. As a duty, as a shepherd, I’m responsible for those who put themselves under my care. I’m not responsible for everybody else.

My emphasis.

If Warren truly believes that as a pastor he is only responsible to the members of the flock he shepherds, perhaps he needs a Divinity School refresher. The Christian concept of being a pastor/deacon/priest/bishop/evangelist entails a ministry to all of God's creation. This is basic Christian understanding of the role of the pastorate. There is no concept in Christianity of being called to minister to only one group, and one group only, of the Body of Christ. I suspect that Warren knows this, but he got burned for his "pontificating" because he said outlandish things prior to the Prop. 8 vote including that homosexuality was akin to bestiality and pedophilia, and now he needs some excuse to heal his wounds.

Either that or he fell asleep during class.

And I don't even know where to begin with his whole dewy-eyed schtick about how he never imagined that his video posted on the Internet would be passed around like mashed potatoes at a Sunday supper.

Gee, who could have ever thought that something like that could happen?

If he is not responsible for everyone else, why is he on CNN?

Could it just be that many of these televangelists are just media whores? Is gay the new staged faith healing?

KingGorilla wrote:

Could it just be that many of these televangelists are just media whores? Is gay the new staged faith healing?

As soon as somebody pretends to stick their head inside a gay guy's head and pulls out a bloody lump of chicken liver proclaiming it to be the source of his homosexuality then I'll... wait. They're kind of already doing that with the rehabilitation classes aren't they? Never mind. My analogy is void.

So I just thought of Lemiwinks and Mr. Slave. Right before dinner. Thanks.

Wow.

Three states approve gay marriage by popular vote and some anti-gay marriage people go from Crazytown to Insanityville.

In just over a week from today, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in Washington. To prepare for this milestone, the state is preparing gender-neutral paperwork that no longer uses language like “husband,” “groom,” “wife,” or “bride.” This simple change to “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” will prevent same-sex couples from having to designate one partner into an identity that doesn’t match their gender. This should be a simple technicality, but Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. believes this “sea change” will ripple across society and have a “tremendous impact” on all marriages:
JOHNSON: This is a sea change. This is a big anthropological change. This will change society in Washington and other states forever… The issue becomes, in terms of gender neutrality, in terms of saying ‘I’m a spouse, I’m not a husband or wife, I’m not a bride or groom, I’m someone about to be married’ — where does it go? [...]

It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about what happens to heterosexual marriage and how those partners are defined, and how those relationships go forward in our society. It’s going to have a tremendous, tremendous impact… Watch this, see what happens. This is going to be a big, big, sea change in our society and how the smallest of our children understand relationships between parents, between husband and wife, between mother and father.

I checked my marriage license from California and it says "Name of Party A" and "Name of Party B."

My God!

It's the end of everything!!!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

It's the end of everything!!!

To be fair... it DID trick you into marrying a dude.

Rezzy wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

It's the end of everything!!!

To be fair... it DID trick you into marrying a dude.

A sexy trick?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Rezzy wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

It's the end of everything!!!

To be fair... it DID trick you into marrying a dude.

A sexy trick?

Bomp. Chicka. Bow. Wow.

But, on the other hand, last I checked I'm a husband. So's Phoenix Rev. And, wow, such a sad thing to have to call your spouse "your spouse" instead of your wife or husband because of this law.

Oh, wait...

I have met plenty of heterosexuals who eschew husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend designations.

I might just know some off people though.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have met plenty of heterosexuals who eschew husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend designations.

I might just know some off people though.

I hear the term partner fairly often as well.

Well, thankfully here in California I still refer to my wife as "my wife" and my wife still refers to me as "that lazy, emotionally unavailable jerk."

What a tragedy. This violates my right to see the words "husband" or "wife" on a marriage license, which is clearly the major civil rights issue here. I mean, if you ignore the fact that I don't remember really looking at my marriage license at all, so I have no idea what it said those years ago.

SixteenBlue wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I have met plenty of heterosexuals who eschew husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend designations.

I might just know some off people though.

I hear the term partner fairly often as well.

Yeah but you live in a socialist wonderland. That doesn't count.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

What a tragedy. This violates my right to see the words "husband" or "wife" on a marriage license, which is clearly the major civil rights issue here. I mean, if you ignore the fact that I don't remember really looking at my marriage license at all, so I have no idea what it said those years ago.

Just got mine, the names are spelled right, double checking they do say Male and Female, but I live in a fly over state.

My only concern was spelling not titles.

KingGorilla wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

What a tragedy. This violates my right to see the words "husband" or "wife" on a marriage license, which is clearly the major civil rights issue here. I mean, if you ignore the fact that I don't remember really looking at my marriage license at all, so I have no idea what it said those years ago.

Just got mine, the names are spelled right, double checking they do say Male and Female, but I live in a fly over state.

My only concern was spelling not titles.

Well, it's spelled right now, but we do know that the gays cause hurricanes, reduce the effectiveness of the military, and threaten our very existence; are you honestly suggesting they're not going to cause typographical errors as well?

My MLA Handbook says "Adam and Eve", not "Addum and Eef".

My Blue Book says Andy and Jeff.

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".

Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

clover wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I have met plenty of heterosexuals who eschew husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend designations.

I might just know some off people though.

I hear the term partner fairly often as well.

Yeah but you live in a socialist wonderland. That doesn't count.

I heard it a lot in Austin too. Oh wait.

Rubb Ed wrote:

But, on the other hand, last I checked I'm a husband. So's Phoenix Rev. And, wow, such a sad thing to have to call your spouse "your spouse" instead of your wife or husband because of this law.
Oh, wait...

This almost made me choke on rice chex and mt. dew at work. Clearly at least one gay man is out to kill me now.

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".
Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

I've coopted this. My Lord High Goddess will never receive notice that I stole this from you. Just saying.

Otherwise, not surprised by Fox, except at the petty things they are picking apart with this now. Losing the war, might as well try a few small battles to turn this rout around I guess.

Paleocon wrote:

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".

Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

We need to drink together more.

Mixolyde wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".

Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

We need to drink together more.

Good luck both getting a beer-pass for the same day from your respective jailers wives.

Mixolyde wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".

Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

We need to drink together more.

absolutely

Paleocon wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I often refer to Mrs. Paleocon as "the Boss", "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", "Lord High Goddess", "She Who Must Be Obeyed", or "The One Who Shall Not Be Upset".

Only occasionally do I refer to her as "wife".

We need to drink together more.

absolutely

Absolut Lee
IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Eka-tcSVHDk/TrZ5HMcJvQI/AAAAAAAABYo/stFb_7zoSYk/s1600/absolut-lee.jpg)

FYI...

Today was the first conferencing date for the DOMA and Prop. 8 cases by the SCOTUS.

Alas, nothing was released today regarding them. Monday at 9:30 AM will tell us if they did grant cert, did not grant cert, or are taking up the issue again in a conference in December.

So, back to waiting.

This is the closest to on topic spam I've seen yet. the xkcd comic is coming true.

Hey, if comedian Dave Attell want's to come here, share his thoughts on gay rights, and provide some sketchy links, more power to him!

Dave, is there any hope of a revived Insomniac? That show was great.