RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/26/2011

Photo: On banded fingers and branded bottles

by Jeremy Hooper

Yet another NOM-in-NYC rally sign, again courtesy of G-A-Y pal Ben May. This one not so much offensive as it is silly:

Screen Shot 2011-07-25 At 1.50.39 Pm
[hal8999: Flickr]

So let's break this down: Bottled water is an entire industry unto itself, with various interested parties offering portability and a clean experience in exchange for cash. What started as a curiosity eventually became a norm -- the consumer's free choices dictating the product's sustainability. Unlike Crystal Pepsi or New Coke, the American consumer seemed to really get behind Aquafina, Dasani, et al. For richer or poorer, better or worse.

Is this curiosity-becomes-status-quo pattern a point of reference for marriage equality? Maybe, in some roundabout way. But if so, why is that bad? Social conservatives love to portray same-sex marriage as some some of oddity, and then use that against us. But why? Because yes, an America where same-sex couples are free to marry is a relatively new idea to all of us. But why does the relative newness of this freedom have to mean scary? Or threatening? Or child-depriving? Why do social conservatives insist on turning something that the public is getting behind in growing numbers every year into some sort of dangerous meteor that's out to destroy a duped nation?

Would kids of the early 1980s have seen bottled water as a common thing? No. But they would've totally understood crusty water fountains with gum stuck in the spigot, soda machines with nothing but caloric options, and bottle recycling efforts than spanned the gamut from nonexistent to marginalized. Were they better off for it? Worse? The same? Debate away.

But as for kids of the early 2040s: Will they see marriage equality for same-sex couples as common? Yes. Emphatically yes. And that one is nothing but refreshing -- far from polluted, stagnant, or gunned up with chewed-up spearmint.

***

*Though in full disclosure: I use a Brita filter and refillable stainless steel Siig bottles.

6A00D8341C503453Ef014E88E5D8A5970D-1

*OTHER posts about Sunday's Manhattan rally:

The eye-opening photos from the day [G-A-Y]

NOM NYC rally sign: 'GAY = Got AIDS Yet?' [G-A-Y]

Why so much sympathetic "security"? [G-A-Y]

A discussion about the crowd makeup -- misinformed, exploited [G-A-Y]

Check out the name of the primary bus company they used [G-A-Y]

About that man who denied anti-gay animus [G-A-Y]

Very off-message Orthodox contingent [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails