Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Instead of boycotting Utah, here's an opposite idea. If you're gay, head there in droves
Although the boycott of Utah could cost the state a bundle in tourism dollars if it's a success--and if it's happening--here's another idea to make an impact. Scott McCoy, an openly gay senator in Utah, has suggested that people who are gay should head to Utah in droves. I read about McCoy's views in this Seattle Times article.
The idea McCoy had when he heard about the ban is to show folks in Utah that gay people and gay families are genuine and wonderful people. By showing up in Utah and doing vacation like things, these families would in essence be educating people about the need gay families have for equal rights under the law just like other families.
Reading McCoy's take on the boycott reminded me about my experience at Kings Island this past August during Gay Pride Night. I went with my brother, his friend and my daughter. As I stood in line to ride the Firehawk, the roller coaster you ride mostly on your stomach, and looked at the other people in line, I thought how utterly common a scene it was. Shorts, T-shirts, sneakers, middle-aged paunches on some, better haircuts on others, talking, laughing, smiling, and visiting. When it stopped raining and all the rides were a go, the joy felt exactly the same on any other day when I've been to an amusement park in the rain. For some reason, give me a summer and I'll go on the rainy day. It's not planned that way, it just happens.
If I hadn't known we were there on Gay Pride Night, I really wouldn't have been able to tell. Maybe McCoy has a point. On the other hand, Colorado lost millions of dollars in the 80s when there was a similar boycott.
Peter Greenburg , the Today show's travel guru, pointed out earlier this year before Prop 8 passed [see article] that with gay people being allowed to tie the knot in California, that state was going to be able to pull in serious bucks. I imagine these days, it's good-bye dough to some extent.
Regardless of ones political or religious opinions, tourism is a powerful playmate when it comes to a state's financial health.
Filed under: Activism, Arts and Culture, Business, Stories
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Michele Nov 26th 2008 3:03PM
Gay people just don't get it. It does not matter whether they are genuine and wonderful people (which I agree many are). They are asking for "marriage" to be included in their "equal rights", which for a large number of people in Utah is against the word of God, as is the gay lifestyle. They still can have the same rights as a married couple in a civil union. Why do they have to invade the institution of "marriage" which is a religious union, sanctified by God. And don't give me that argument that heterosexuals have not done a very good job being married. True, the majority of marriages dissolve, but the rest of them, (mine included) are intact and blessed. And just because a marriage would be a "gay" marriage does not mean it would last any longer than heterosexual marriages do. It is also my opinion that either boycotting or flooding the gates of Utah would accomplish the same negative end.
Denise Cummins Nov 30th 2008 9:07PM
As a Latter-Day Saint who supports Prop 8 I don't think that boycotting or flooding Utah would accomplish anything useful. I believe it would, in fact, be counter-productive - illustrating the intolerance of homosexual activists for opinions which differ from their own.
I would venture to say that most Latter-Day Saints, including myself, did not view Prop 8 as a rejection of homosexuals, but as protection of a divine institution. It seems that many who voted against Prop 8 did so because they felt that marriage is an expression of romantic love and that this should not be denied to same-sex couples. However, marriage does not have its roots in romantic love, but in the perpetuation of the family and in religious doctrine. Although most Latter-Day Saints embrace the notion of romantic love as an important aspect of marriage, they also deeply cherish its Biblical definitions and significance. The LDS support of Prop 8 was based in love and respect for this institution, not in hatred toward any group of people. For this reason, boycotts or other tactics to change Latter-Day Saints minds about same-sex couples are unlikely to be effective.
Mike Nov 27th 2008 4:08AM
Michele - Marriage is our society's symbol for love. The issue of Gay marriage isn't about the right to visit someone in the hospital (is that why you got married?), it's about whether our society recognizes homosexual love as legitimate.
Further, should a religious union (as you described marriage) have a place in our secular government?
I don't know about this Utah thing either way. Is it like Myanmar, where you go but try not to give any money to the bad people? I'm not going to Utah because I'm not really interested in going to Utah, no politics about it.
Robert Blackie Nov 27th 2008 9:49AM
Well, actually marriage is both a religious and civil institution, and "gay people" are only asking to be allowed civil marriage. Based on your logic, if marriage is a solely religious institution, then the government should absolve all marriages (gay or straight) and simply institute civil unions for all couples, regardless of orientation, and leave "marriage" up to the churches. That would satisfy the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
These points were touched upon in the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health verdict in Massachusetts:
"...the government creates civil marriage."
"Eliminating civil marriage would be wholly inconsistent with the Legislature's deep commitment to fostering stable families and would dismantle a vital organizing principle of our society."
So I think you've merged in your mind two different things Michele. There are several advantages to marriage that are still denied to gay people even through civil unions (A gay spouse from another country is not eligible for a green card, for example). I don't think a travel blog is really the appropriate venue for such a discussion as this, so I will end this here.
Michele Nov 28th 2008 5:23PM
"if marriage is a solely religious institution, then the government should absolve all marriages (gay or straight) and simply institute civil unions for all couples, regardless of orientation, and leave "marriage" up to the churches."
Actually, I think that would not be a bad idea, although I do not believe all current marriages need to be absolved. Those already recognized by their state AND their church would still maintain their status as "married". Those who have chosen not to be married by a member of clergy and/or do not believe in a religious doctrine that sanctifies marriage would receive a civil status. All couples could say they are "civilized" and those who cherish the Biblical interpretation and sanctity of marriage would say they are "married". This separates the church and state and satisfies the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. But then I suppose we still would need to establish whether marriage can be only between a man and a woman, as several churches are now performing gay marriage ceremonies and the aforementioned would allow them to say they are "married" which in my opinion is not an option. So I guess that puts us right back where we started, doesn't it.
HC Dec 2nd 2008 3:19PM
I guess I don't understand why the gay community is only picking the Mormons to show their displeasure. Prop 8 passed in California because *more* than just Mormons voted for it. Are they just the easy target?