|
Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage (Page 1/31) |
|
blackrams
|
MAY 28, 08:52 AM
|
|
Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage Bruce Watson May 27th 2009
Now that Memorial day has passed, Levi's has begun outfitting its mannequins in white. This year, however, the bright color doesn't just represent the beginning of the summer or a nice accent for denim. Rather, the jean giant has also begun using white to demonstrate its support for gay marriage.
The White Knot program encourages people to demonstrate their solidarity with marriage equality by wearing a small piece of knotted white ribbon. A subtle symbol, white knots have appeared on the clothing of celebrities ranging from New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg to comedienne Kathy Griffin. And now, of course, they are appearing on hundreds of Levi's mannequins.
This is an interesting move for the company. While Levi's once represented the pinnacle of jean fashion, it has long since been replaced by an endless procession of other brands.
Current favorites, including Rock & Republic, Diesel, 7 For All Mankind, and True Religion are priced far out of the range of most Levi's. Moreover, the company's decision to launch its "Signature" line, which is primarily marketed through Wal-Mart and other discount retailers, could be regarded as an admission that the company is permanently positioning itself as a mass-market brand.
Although the more cynical among us might argue that Levi Strauss' move to support gay marriage is part of a plot to gain more gay customers, this seems reductive. After all, in recent years, the company has aggressively moved to gain a significant portion of the gay market.
On television, they have released ads directly targeted at gay consumers and sponsored programs on Logo. More substantively, it was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to "domestic partners of unmarried employees." Late last year, Levi's gave $25,000 to the coalition leading the fight against California' Prop 8, and its chairman emeritus gave $100,000.
Earlier this month, as part of the company's "501 Day," Levi Strauss let employees take off the day from work to volunteer with nonprofit organizations in their communities. Levi's then gave cash grants to the organizations that their employees endorsed.
Levi's has begun outfitting its mannequins in white to demonstrate its support for gay marriage. The White Knot program encourages people to demonstrate their solidarity with marriage equality by wearing a small piece of knotted white ribbon. For a look at shopping scenes, from around the world, in the recession, click through our gallery.(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)
In San Francisco, where the company is headquartered, these organizations included the San Francisco LGBT Center, Out of the Closet, and the AIDS Memorial Grove. Later in May, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) honored Levi Strauss for its inclusion of gays in advertising and its attempts to foster LGBT-friendly workplaces.
Part of the reason that Levi Strauss is able to make this commitment to supporting LGBT rights is because it is still family-owned. However, in a broader context, the company's moves demonstrate that LGBT rights might not be quite as controversial as the past eight years may have suggested.
After all, while one might expect gay marriage to gain traction in Massachusetts and California, Iowa's decision to make it legal demonstrates that inclusive policies are not the sole purview of coastal America.
In fact, given the passage of Proposition 8 in California and New York's slowness in pushing for marriage equality, it seems that America's most avowedly liberal states may have much to learn about inclusion!
While it seems likely that Levi's might lose a little bit of market share in some of the country's more conservative areas, its move to embrace gay rights suggests that this issue has become more about civil rights than about religion. In this context, it seems like the move for universal marriage rights may have turned a corner. ***************** Anyone happen to catch the Country Music Entertainer of the Decade show last night, Jamie Fox was pretty good.
Ron[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-28-2009).]
|
|
|
NEPTUNE
|
MAY 28, 09:13 AM
|
|
Who my neighbor sleeps with, or makes a commitment to, is none of my business. Or yours. This is supposed to be a FREE country. So why are we trying to make it free for only some people? Gay people should have the same right to make lawyers rich as anybody else. http://same-sex-gay-marriag..._white_knot_campaign From the US Constitution:
quote |
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
|
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.c...itution/amendment14/
------------------ Mean People Suck [This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 05-28-2009).]
|
|
|
blackrams
|
MAY 28, 09:40 AM
|
|
So, I'm guessing you didn't watch the show?
Ron
|
|
|
Patrick's Dad
|
MAY 28, 09:40 AM
|
|
quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
... More substantively, it was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to "domestic partners of unmarried employees." Late last year, Levi's gave $25,000 to the coalition leading the fight against California' Prop 8, and its chairman emeritus gave $100,000....
|
|
Exactly when I stopped buying Levis.
Neptune, the Government didn't create Marriage. Therefore, as privileges are concerned, Government has no real jurisdiction over Marriage. For decades, married individuals paid a penalty in taxes. Where was your voice in quelling this injustice?
|
|
|
avengador1
|
MAY 28, 09:54 AM
|
|
Besides the Church (and that one too is doubtful), who gets hurt by Gay marriage?
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
MAY 28, 10:08 AM
|
|
quote | Originally posted by NEPTUNE:
Who my neighbor sleeps with, or makes a commitment to, is none of my business. Or yours. This is supposed to be a FREE country. So why are we trying to make it free for only some people? Gay people should have the same right to make lawyers rich as anybody else. http://same-sex-gay-marriag..._white_knot_campaign From the US Constitution: [QUOTE]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[QUOTE] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.c...itution/amendment14/
|
|
It depends on whether you view MARRIAGE as a RELIGIOUS UNION or a CIVIL UNION. This is the distinction many people don't make. Marriage is a religious concept co-opted by the state for legal reasons. States can offer "civil unions" with the same rights as "marriage" and it is equal without offending millions of people who view marriage as sacred. But that's not how it works for the minority groups in this country anymore it seems. The majority must give in to the minority instead. UNLESS the "majority" turns out to be in agreement with them, THEN the majority can do whatever they want.
I personally do not much care either way regarding gay marriage, etc. I think people should be able to live as they please if it's not hurting me. But to say that the majority should bend to the desires of the minority? This I disagree with. Any other time, these same people will tout "this is a democracy." But if they don't get what they want because they are the minority, they want to change the rules. I don't support that part.[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 05-28-2009).]
|
|
|
frontal lobe
|
MAY 28, 10:35 AM
|
|
quote | Originally posted by avengador1:
Besides the Church (and that one too is doubtful), who gets hurt by Gay marriage? |
|
It is an intentional attempt to blur the lines and definitions and equate two homosexuals living together with a marriage of a man and a woman. They are not equal. They are not equivalent. They are different.
Two unmarried heterosexuals living together does not equate to a marriage, either.
From a legal standpoint, I don't care what society votes to do.
From a societal standpoint, definitions are important.
The DEFINITION of the word marriage is a man and a woman who have made the commitment to each other of a life-long, exclusive union. (doesn't change the definition because more then half the people that enter it don't stick to the commitment).
2 heterosexuals living together doesn't rise to that definition.
2 people of the same sex PHYSICALLY CAN'T rise to that definition.
And lest anyone get ticked at me, nobody asked me what the definition of marriage is. It existed for THOUSANDS of years before I came on the scene.
But just because 2 homosexuals want to live together and maybe they make a life long commitment, they don't get to toss out THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a definition to fit what they are doing.
My suggestion to homosexuals--get your OWN word for what you are doing.
But that isn't anti-homosexual. That is for ANYone who wants to try to change the definition of ANY historically long held word.
Like Bill Clinton, for example. Depends on what the definition of "is" is. Well, it is the same definition it has been for THOUSANDS of years, Bill.
Words have ESTABLISHED meanings. You don't get to change the word and its definition, no matter how many white knots you put on a pair of blue jeans. Sorry.
|
|
|
Patrick's Dad
|
MAY 28, 10:38 AM
|
|
quote | Originally posted by avengador1:
Besides the Church (and that one too is doubtful), who gets hurt by Gay marriage? |
|
By redefining what marriage means, marriage can mean anything to a legislator's or jurist's whim. Why not bigamy? Why not polygamy? Why not marry a child? An animal?
Eventually, marriage, created to be the core of the family, means nothing. Of course, if marriage means nothing, then family means nothing. Without the family support system, there is a vacuum ready for anyone (including government) to step in - just what we all need.
If Church and State are supposed to be separate, then the Feds and the States shouldn't be defining or redefining it. It occurs to me that, if you don't want to be part of the Church (or Synagogue) then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. Seriously, who would that hurt?
|
|
|
Cheever3000
|
MAY 28, 10:43 AM
|
|
This is nothing new. I stopped buying their stuff a very long time ago, when Levi-Strauss cut off funding to the Boy Scouts.
|
|
|
ray b
|
MAY 28, 01:13 PM
|
|
quote | Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:
By redefining what marriage means, marriage can mean anything to a legislator's or jurist's whim. Why not bigamy? Why not polygamy? Why not marry a child? An animal?
Eventually, marriage, created to be the core of the family, means nothing. Of course, if marriage means nothing, then family means nothing. Without the family support system, there is a vacuum ready for anyone (including government) to step in - just what we all need.
If Church and State are supposed to be separate, then the Feds and the States shouldn't be defining or redefining it. It occurs to me that, if you don't want to be part of the Church (or Synagogue) then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. Seriously, who would that hurt? |
|
why does the church get to own marriage? why do fairy tale believers get to set rules for others there were marriages long before there were churches every culture has some concept of marriage few were christian
BTW I was married 35 years ago by a cute blond notery public in a very civil wedding no god or fairy tales were allowed or needed we just followed the state rules and used their forms
religion has no say in what nonchurch members do for the suckers in their cult they can and do set the rules and no one has wanted to force churches to marry gays but church sure wants to impose it's will on those outside the cult I think that shows the danger of cults far more then anything else
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
|
|
|
|