Disney does the right thing on same-sex marriage

Hey, another proof that the straight gene is statistically linked to the inhibitor of the humor gene. 

François
---------------
http://gaycomicslist.free.fr

congrats to Disney......they were boycotted by the southern baptists over health benefits to gay couples....didn't seem to hurt disney land and world too much.....ever wonder who designs all the fabulous rides and fantasy places at the disney parks??? bet your ass it's not some uptight straight man....so disney.. keep your policy, and don't knuckle under to hateful bigoted religious wackos...I'm gay, and you would not believe the amount of married baptist men who frequent bookstores and gay bars looking for a little male lovin..... how do you spell hypocrite???

other funny one by the baptists.........they boycotted anheuser busch......gee I didn't think the baptists were allowed to drink.....the pres of busch breweries laughed at the boycott and said....." I really don't think that's our customer base"""

Laugh on

After I read your original expose on Disney's "Fairy Tale Wedding" policy, I was outraged.  I was completely unaware that I could spend $40G plus for a wedding for  my daughter at WDW, but if my son wanted to have a ceremony with his partner (legal or not) in the same venue, the same $40G would be useless tender.

As a stockholder in The WDC, I wrote a letter to investor relations last week about their policy.  I received a reply today stating that Disney was, indeed, changing their policy.

It does help for all of us to speak up for what is right.

This was rather interesting:

"So what prompted the change? Walker said it was because of a "an inquiry from a guest that asked about this service." Walker then said he had to go have lunch with Tinker Bell and Goofy."

I am a Central Florida Wedding Officiant who very recently had a (heterosexual) couple contact me to perform their Commitment Ceremony on a boat in the lake at Disney World. They had some difficulties since they were not getting legally married, but Disney World decided to let them do it.

I wonder if my couple may have had anything to do with the change? I hope so.

As for this earlier post:

Don't blame Disney...

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2007-04-06 08:09.

It's a fairy tale WEDDING not a fairy tale commitment.. you can't blame Disney because they didn't allow it, you blame the law. Now they have to make a whole new arrangement for gay people? And how many gay people will spend $8,000 for a commitment ceremony?! This is nothing but a liability for them...

My answer to this is simply that, as most of the gay couples I know consist of two people who are well-educated and financially stable, they are much more likely to be able to afford the $8,000 ceremony than many heterosexual couples who tend to get married at a much earlier age.

Well put, sharkgrrrl.

The institution of marriage has been the antithesis of personal liberty until only the last few decades.  Prior to the last half of the 20th century, marriage served as an unwritten legal blanket of protection for men who were physically and sexually abusive to their spouses and children, and men who wished to deny property or the basic necessities of life to their spouses and children.   The justice system ignored the desperate pleas of these second-class persons, and swept despicable behavior under the carpet as "a family matter" best resolved by the heads of household (men) and, you guessed it...the advice of the prevailing church authority.

In the years since, almost every stage in the effort to reform laws to protect women and children was met with resistence and outright hostility by conservatives and religious devotees who insisted these initiatives were "an attack on traditional family values". Sound familiar?

I wish governments would simply adopt a policy of individual taxation regardless of marital status, thus eliminating the need for state-sanctioned marriage recognition-- period.  Churches may still refuse to marry whomever they wish according to their "conscience", but the authority to invalidate certain relationships would rest no longer in the hands of vote-seeking public servants and small-minded bureaucrats.