Pfft, no. But who are the Blazers reaching out to with this move? Young Portlanders with extra cash to spend on Blazers products? Definitely. The queer community of Portland? Yes. People with a sense of decency (oops an opinion!). Yep. Fox News watchers? Probably not. Doesn't matter. Preaching to the choir is what good PR is all about. And besides, if anything they are gaining more followers than they are losing. This is long term strategy. The next generation is going to appreciate this. The people they might lose now (as opposed to the next 30 years when they all die off) sound like this:
I can't wait to see the first gay marriage proposal on the jumbotron. Or at least the twitter meltdown when it does happen. There was a "straight" marriage proposal in the preseason and a bunch of twitter accounts went defcon 5.
Great! Good riddance! Yes I would like to see that. Why wouldn't I want them to announce that they are douchebags? Not at all, it would merely confirm my suspicions. barfo
If someone gets offended by an organization supporting equal rights for all law abiding citizens, they deserve to be offended. BNM
So if an organization came out and supported gun rights, the removal of ILLEGAL immigrants or something else in the Constitution, should anyone be offended by that?
If the Blazers took a position against equal rights - for gays, for women, for African-Americans, for Spanish speaking people, it absolutely would affect my fandom. It sure affected me when they went out of their way to sign Ruben Patterson, when other good players were available. I don't want to restart the "rape is a fantasy of man haters" shit; I'm just saying there were other good bench players, they did not have to go out of their way to sign one with a rape conviction. That, plus the way they trivialized anyone who objected, did sent a message that the feelings of women (and a lot of male) fans were not too important. And when an athlete or owner or coach says something stupid and bigoted, hey, he/she may have free speech, to be sure, but I have an equal right to root against him/her or his/her team. It's absurd to say sports and politics are separate. Sports is part of the world. If sports and politics are separate, why play the National Anthem? Why did they add an American flag patch to sports uniforms during the first Gulf War, and now it's there forever? We live in the world. Are athletes unaffected by racial prejudice? Don't female athletes face gender prejudice, constantly having to prove they can be "real" women and elite athletes? Why are so few gay and lesbian athletes out? Did anyone see League of Denial on PBS? Wasn't the NFL covering up and cooking data on concussions political? I do agree franchises (unlike individuals in sports) should not, for example, endorse candidates. But the Blazers took a position that all are created equal and are entitled to certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You know, something like that was written long ago. Too bad some people consider equality a "sad day". Says a lot more about them than the Blazers.
I wonder if, based on this basic tenet of their stance, they will also come out: in favor of marijuana legalization (so individuals can exercise their fundamental right to choose whether or not they use drugs); in opposition to gun restrictions (so individuals can exercise their fundamental right to choose whether or not they use firearms) in opposition of seat belt and helmet laws (so individuals can exercise their fundamental right to choose whether or not they wear safety equipment) in opposition to the ACA's individual mandate (so individuals can exercise their fundamental right to choose whether or not they purchase health care) Otherwise, it seems like opportunistic posturing to jump on what seems like the popular side of the latest cause du jour.
So, CrandC, what if they had come out in support of right to bear arms. You know, something like that was written long ago as well.
Listen, I get what you're saying, I just don't think they should get involved in politics at all. It opens a door that I don't want to see opened. This time it's the Blazers supporting gay marriage, which is great because I support gay marriage, but what if next time it's an issue that I don't agree with? Maybe it's not the Blazers, but another team that I follow, and they pick something that I don't agree with. You admitted that you'd have a hard time supporting the Blazers if the issue was reversed. I think a lot of people feel that way. I don't even want to think about politics when I'm watching my favorite teams. I just want to think about winning, about my favorite players, etc. I hate when a guy that I enjoy watching opens up his mouth and says something bigoted or stupid. I hate when one of my favorite players turns out to be an asshole. It makes it that much harder to support that player, regardless of whether he's on my favorite team or not. Wouldn't you rather not know that such and such player is a bigoted prick? Wouldn't you rather just support him as a great athlete? Why mess with a good thing. I don't want to know if my team supports or doesn't support my beliefs, I just want to know if they can play basketball or football. I've actually felt this way for a long time. I don't want to know if Damon Stoudamire smokes weed. I don't want to know if Darius Miles forgot to pay at the gas pump. I don't want to know if Tom Cruise is a fucking nutjob because I just want to enjoy the movie, or the game, or music and not have to think about whether the person I'm supporting is a complete douche. I use music, TV, movies, and sports as a way to relax and forget about work, or school, or financial issues, etc. I don't want to know what my favorite QB thinks about gay marriage, or my favorite actor thinks about abortion, or my favorite band thinks about the war in Afghanistan. I just want to feel good for a few hours.
I think all of you are completely missing the point on this. This past week Willamette Week's lead article was on how popular the Timbers were and if they are more popular than the Blazers. (Conclusion, Blazers still more popular but it's surprising that at just how popular the Timbers have become.) Anyway, by the noon news on Friday the Timbers and Thorns were announcing that they were the first professional sports franchise that has come out in favor same sex marriage. It wasn't until breaking news at the 11pm newscast that the Blazers jumped on this bandwagon. Now the Blazers normally release information via a press release, then that press release is posted on Twitter and emailed to the all the reporters and news outlets that cover the Blazers and they all tweet the same thing. Except this announcement didn't happen that way. It was just a breaking news announcement on the late news. I don't think anyone in the Blazer organization even thought about same sex marriage until the Timbers made their announcement. By the Timbers announcing this I get the feeling that the Blazers felt it was better to join them then to silently sit by and say nothing. This was a knee jerk reaction by the Blazers. It doesn't mean that it wasn't the correct reaction but this was a case of the Blazers following instead of leading.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. So no need to make a change. The right is there. Of course, as a private business the Blazers and Timbers have the right to prohibit carrying firearms into arenas. Marriage equality is not yet legally established. The teams are taking a position in favor of equal rights for all. Gun owners have equal legal rights with non gun owners, no matter how much the NRA tries to pretend to be victims. Same sex couples do not have equal legal rights. God, I sometimes wonder if people are being deliberately dense? Or what? It is very simple and very obvious. Repeat, the teams are not taking positions on the Middle East conflict, health care reform, abortion, candidates, or vegetarianism. I agree those would not be good ideas. They are taking a position in favor of equal rights for all. That is all. Equality. Legal equality. How much simpler can it be? I would point out that the Blazers have (or at least have had in the past) not just one but several so called "faith and family" nights where "faith" is understood to be evangelical Christian and "family" hetersexual marriage. I would not go to any of these as I would explicitly not be welcome. But how does supporting equal rights for all make you, a hetero, unwelcome? It takes nothing from you. It is legal equality, nothing more, nothing less.
I can't carry my legally registered fire arm into the arena. A legally registered fire arm that the constitution says I can bear. So how do I have the same rights as non gun owners? You say faith and family night is understood to mean evangelical Christian and family heterosexual marriage. Did the Blazers come out and say that, or is that just your view on it? They also had AAA - Not a member, guess I wasn't welcome AARP - Not a member, guess I wasn't welcome Blazers Edge Night - Not a fan of Blazers edge website, guess I wasn't welcome BlazersDancer Clinic Night - Not going to be a Blazer dancer, guess I wasn't welcome Boy Scouts - Not a Boy scout, guess I wasn't welcome Brides and Basketball - Not a bride, guess I wasn't welcome Career Fair - Didn't need a job, guess I wasn't welcome Chanukah Jewish Celebration Night - Not Jewish, guess I wasn't welcome Faith and Family Night Girl Scouts - Not a girl scout, guess I wasn't welcome Military Appreciation Night - Not in or was in the military, guess I wasn't welcome Mormon Church Night - Not a Mormon, guess I wasn't welcome Police & Fire Night - Not a police or fire man, guess I wasn't welcome Public Employee Appreciation Night - Not a public employee, guess I wasn't wecome Sports Business Days UO/OSU Civil War Night YMCA and Youth Basketball Nights - Not involved in the Y, guess I wasn't welcome Seriously, for someone to say they would "explicitly not be welcome" because of a certain promotion is asinine
I can see Nate's point (re: guns..or whatever his point was, I don't want to scroll up and find it). But I don't see this as a "sad day" in Blazers history, or them stepping over the bounds of anything. If Paul Allen decided he was in favor of this, then he has the right to do it. After all, the Blazers *are* a business. If he wants to say to the world "Hey, the Blazers are joining the Timbers and Thorns in supporting Gay Marriage", that's fine. If he wants to say "the Blazers support Solar Energy and are putting Solar Panels on the roof the Garden" that's ok too (or Moda center, whatever). if he wants to say he supports the 2nd Amendment, that's fine too. I don't care one way or the other, nor does it bother me that the team made this announcement. If it's OK for the owner(s) of Chic Filet to make statements about Gay Marriage (and get a bunch of conservative/religious freaks praising them), I don't see why this isn't OK.
I like it . . . very Portland like! I'm not concerned if this helps or hurts the Blazers by taking a "political stance." They seem to be all about marketing these days and I'm sure this was a calculated move. If anything this will increase their popularity more than decrease it, IMO. Good for a franchise to be brave enough to take position on this issue and I'm glad the Blazers were the first NBA team to do it.
you understand the difference between "congress shall make no law" and private owners, right? I am not congress, but if I own the building you're going in I can make it so you can't bring your gun (or drink alcohol, or smoke), into my business or building. As for the other stuff, I both agree and disagree with some of what you said (the nights theme). But none of those nights you mentioned involve a group of people who have had laws created (not necessarily only in Oregon) where they are discriminated against. So it's not an equal comparison. It's a changing, improving world. Some of us are moving forward with our ideology and how we see other people. And it seems that some people are acting like Harry Truman here, and refusing to leave because they're convinced that things aren't changing and that there's no need to go away. The mountain ain't explodin!
The problem with this position is that you are absolutely correct in your first statement. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. There is no similar right clearly established in the Constitution for people of the same sex to be married. As you well know, the US Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act and California Proposition 8, but did not make a broad ruling establishing such a right in a way that laws in other states that limit marriage to heterosexual couples would be determined to be unconstitutional. As of right now, all we know is that the Federal Government cannot establish laws that would restrict legitimate laws by states that DO allow such marriages. The Proposition 8 case didn't really determine anything significant relative to marriage rights as it was determined that since California had not appealed a lower court decision, the proponents of the ban didn't have standing to carry forward the appeal. So, from a legal standpoint, marriage equality is in kind of a twilight situation where individual states can adopt laws either way on the subject. Oregon, so far, recognizes civil unions but not same sex marriage. However one may feel on the topic, this situation moves the action by the Blazers and Timbers into the realm of politics, which is something that I think is not wise for a sports franchise to delve into.
