![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThis news story has gotten a fair bit of coverage, both among m blogospheric friends and by the mainstream newsmedia.
I'm glad that Tim Horton's stood up for same-sex marriage rights. I'm also peeved that the National Organization for Marriage has deemed same-sex marriage a threat to marriage. By definition, doesn't the interest of two people to establish a marriage strengthen marriage? What could possibly be more conservative than wanting the ability to establish a legal relationship--something that can be done by legal officials and ministers in pro-gay churches, not in denominations with problems--that would secure property and inheritance rights as well as adoption? It's not as if The Onion's article "Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry" is going to come true.
Silliness.
When Tim Hortons decided to peddle its coffee and sugary treats in the northern U.S., the chain was betting that no one ever went broke overestimating the appetite of the American public. But in its cross-border expansion, Tims was not prepared to feed a political controversy.
The company is now reckoning with the quagmire of American family values politics, after creating a stir with its plan to sponsor an anti-gay marriage event in Rhode Island.
After local blog the Providence Daily Dose reported Tim Hortons' sponsorship of the event, the negative attention reached the company's head office in Oakville and it withdrew its support. “It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines,” the company said in a statement released Monday afternoon .
“Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event,” the release said.
The Marriage Day Celebration, which is to be held this Sunday in the shadow of a stately mansion in Warwick, R.I., is organized by the National Organization for Marriage, a group that lobbies against the legalization of gay marriage, and the sponsors behind an ad campaign released in April that famously equated the gay marriage lobby to a gathering storm. Plans for the event include a barbecue dinner and an ice cream social, as well as live worship music.
Tim Hortons' sponsorship guidelines specify it does not sponsor “religious groups” or “political affiliates.” The regional office in Rhode Island originally approved the sponsorship.
“Major error by the regional manager, here,” said Alan Middleton, a marketing professor at York University's Schulich business school. “This is an operational slippage by Tim Hortons. Sex, religion and politics are things you try as a corporation not to engage in. This is particularly thorny because it deals with all three.”
The issue also highlights how difficult it can be for companies such as Tim Hortons to market themselves in local, national and international arenas simultaneously, while keeping a consistent brand image across the board.
I'm glad that Tim Horton's stood up for same-sex marriage rights. I'm also peeved that the National Organization for Marriage has deemed same-sex marriage a threat to marriage. By definition, doesn't the interest of two people to establish a marriage strengthen marriage? What could possibly be more conservative than wanting the ability to establish a legal relationship--something that can be done by legal officials and ministers in pro-gay churches, not in denominations with problems--that would secure property and inheritance rights as well as adoption? It's not as if The Onion's article "Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry" is going to come true.
Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."
Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."
[. . .]
Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."
According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.
"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."
Silliness.
