Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Jesse Walker explains how Disney's recognition of same-sex marriages is merely Hayekian social change in action.
ed|4.9.07 @ 12:14PM|#
"a ceremony setting befitting the dreams of a
princess."
I'm just happy I had nothing in my mouth when I read that line.
highnumber|4.9.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Oh, ed!
Is it any coincidence that I am glad that I had nothing in my mouth
when I read your comment?
|4.9.07 @ 12:28PM|#
The phrases "gay marriage" and "I'm glad I had nothing in my
mouth when . . ." really shouldn't be used together.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Bhh|4.9.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Gay guys are the only guys who could possibly enjoy the whole
wedding thing so go nuts guys.
Anywho my sister is having a girl in a few months. She's getting
carpetbombed by Disney pink princess pony crap.
LarryA|4.9.07 @ 12:42PM|#
For an extra fee, couples buying the Fairy Tale Wedding can
hire Mickey and Minnie Mouse to attend as guests, sitting in the
audience in formal wear.
But can you get Mickey and Joe? Or Minnie and Susan? Haven't seen
any gay Disney characters yet.
Bee|4.9.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Anybody else here been to Gay Days at either Disneyland or
Disney World? Fun fun fun. We look forward to that all year. And
we're straight!
Disney's acceptance of the real world (as lived here in SoCal,
anyway) goes down well here with both straights and gays. They're a
pretty big employer hereabouts.
I understand that people do boycott their products for exactly this
reason, however. Which they are perfectly free to do.
Passim|4.9.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Sweet Jesus! Please let us pass a Constitutional amendment
allowing same-sex marriage nationwide!
I don't want to have to attend some weird Disney-thing in a few
years.
Please! Think of the PARENTS!
severin|4.9.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Jesse is right, but don't worry in 5-10 or more years the government will sanction gay marriage and then claim full responsibility for it being accepted into mainstream society.
|4.9.07 @ 1:05PM|#
"But can you get Mickey and Joe? Or Minnie and Susan?"
How about Walt Disney in a dress?
highnumber|4.9.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Haven't seen any gay Disney characters yet.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
|4.9.07 @ 1:20PM|#
But can you get Mickey and Joe? Or Minnie and Susan? Haven't
seen any gay Disney characters yet.
It could be pointed out that both Goofy and Pluto are male dogs,
and I think I've seen a picture of Goofy leading a naked Pluto on a
leash, indicating a homosexual relationship there, albeit of the
out-there San Franscisco S&M type.
I guess since Mickey is actually gimpy Pluto's "owner" he has the
same kind of relationship, so all three of them must be in some
kind of gay polyamorous arrangement. Disney has long ago broken
ground way beyond "two gay people quietly living together as a
couple."
|4.9.07 @ 1:24PM|#
The judge says to minnie, "you want a divorce because mickey is
not right in the head?"
Minnie says "Your honor, I didn't say he was crazy,
I said he was fuckin goofy."
hrumphing Moose|4.9.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Highnumber:
look up! Look
down! Look out! Look around! There's a crazy world out there...
It could happen to you. It could happen to me. It could happen to
everyone eventually. As you happen to say, it could happen
today...
Deny|4.9.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Some will argue this is next at Disney.
http://www.pacificsites.com/~drhoades/graphics/gallery/maddog.jpg
|4.9.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Yeah well Mickey is just a corporate bitch anyhow.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33357.html
|4.9.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Just an observation: "If anything, the government has been
increasingly unfriendly to gay unions, with multiple states passing
laws refusing to recognize same-sex marriages."
Many states have amended their constitutions to ban both same
same-sex marriage and civil unions," but it's not a majority of
states. States like New Hampshire, Oregon, Illinois and some others
look set to approve civil unions.
It's ultimately a federal issue. The Illinois law, for example,
which may or may not pass, will recognize both same-sex and
opposite-civil unions. It also recognizes civil unions from other
states.
Anyone who pretends this won't be a federal issue is, in my
opinion, wrong.
My guess is that same-sex marriage will be legalized at the
national within the next eight to ten years.
In the meantime, the states will decide.
Ben
Realist|4.9.07 @ 9:17PM|#
"F.A. Hayek...celebrated social orders that emerge from below
rather than being imposed from above."
Nazism was a social order that emerged from below. No matter where
they emerge from, social orders are MAINTANED from above. That's
the crucial fact that stary-eyed libertarians choose to ignore.
highnumber|4.9.07 @ 10:19PM|#
Realist, you're wrong. The Nazi party emerged from below. Their
social order was imposed from above.
That's not a nitpick, it's an important distinction that you have
missed.
leon|4.10.07 @ 12:47AM|#
highnumber
Middle-class German enthusiasm for the Nazi program is well
documented. Hitler was elected, and he wasn't hiding his
program.
highnumber|4.10.07 @ 8:58AM|#
leon,
You're missing the point.
Popular support for top-down controls does not mean that the
control is coming from below.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Hitler was first appointed (when his popularity was on the wane) and then was able (with the help of other parties) to gain a majority of seats in government. The Nazi party never achieved in an election the 50% plus one seats it would have to have had to claim solo majority rule via the vote.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 9:46AM|#
leon,
As for enthusiasm for the Nazi program, well, the Nazis were big
pollers, observers of public opinion, etc. They tried to craft such
of course but they also tried to bend to it. Indeed, one of the
reasons that they did so was due to fear of a coup; they didn't
want to be overthrown as Kaiser had been at the close of WWI.
|4.10.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Gay Marriage slipping in the mainstream consciousness through
the back door you say?
I love it when people "boycott" In todays world, this just turns
into free publicity. Besides, most the people who claim they do not
want to economically support Disney, can't anyway. Its just a cheap
way to make themselves feel important to not spend the money they
don't have in the first place. Whereas most gays are college
educated and have the money to waste.
Fitz|4.10.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Companies like Disney (Ford, Wall-Mart Ect) don't fear
Boycotts.. What they fear is the press and elite opinion. Focus on
the Family can boycott anything they want and no one will really
notice. But GLAAD or some other interest group on the left launches
a charge that X or Y company is "discriminatory" and the whole
media lights up.
These companies aren't exactly eager to give away prohibitively
expensive "partner benefits" even to legitimately married men &
woman. Yet years back most of them bent over backwards to offer
them to homosexual couples. The "why exactly" of that story is one
you wont be seeing on 60 minutes.
As far as Walkers "impeccably Hayekian fashion, as folkways appear
on the ground and are gradually ratified by imitation"- well, if
Yale University and the NYT are "ground up folkways"…then what is
this….
57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio,
66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri,
73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 =
Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi,
56-44 = Colorado, 63-37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 =
South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 =
Wisconsin..
How does that fit in???
Jesse Walker|4.11.07 @ 8:56AM|#
How does that fit in???
It doesn't, since evolution doesn't work by majority vote. Same
applies to the silly Nazi comparison someone made upthread.
Fitz|4.11.07 @ 12:21PM|#
evolution?? huh, some sort of neo-Darwinian thesis for social change. Why would not democratic action be a legitimate part of that? What about states that legislatively enact civil unions and the like? Is that "evolution"
Fitz|4.11.07 @ 1:02PM|#
"If Mickey is cool with gay marriage, the rest of the
country can't be that far behind."
They say: "It's not whether elites rule, but which elites."
I'm not talking about a conspiracy; I'm talking about a
consensus.
The weight of that consensus driving a social "evolution" says
nothing about the moral veracity of what is "evolving".
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63
There are any numbers of advocacy groups that want fortune 500
companies to meet this or that demand. (The list is endless)
The idea however that fortune 500 companies are legitimate
evolutionary forces, yet democratic rule is somehow an illegitimate
force (or no force at all) is simply not "impeccably Hayekian"
idea.
Jesse Walker|4.11.07 @ 1:24PM|#
If you've read the phrase "impeccably Hayekian," then you have found the first of two paragraphs explaining what I mean by Hayekian evolution. Hopefully they will clear up any confusion about the role democracy, social elites, and the Fortune 500 may or may not play in the transformation.
Fitz|4.11.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Mr. Walker
I cant seem to square your statement:
"as folkways appear on the ground and are gradually ratified by
imitation, then market acknowledgement, and then, only lastly, by
the law."
With your answer to my question?
"As far as Walkers "impeccably Hayekian fashion, as folkways appear on the ground and are gradually ratified by imitation"- well, if Yale University and the NYT are "ground up folkways"…then what is this….
57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63-37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin.."
How does that fit in???
"It doesn't, since evolution doesn't work by majority
vote."
Certainly this would be a legitimate manifestation of evolution
working within society. In this instance it seems to be the
majority declaring the folkway undesirable through democratic
action. Is there no room in your understanding of "Hayekian
evolution" for anything less then your desired outcome?
Jesse Walker|4.11.07 @ 11:35PM|#
Certainly this would be a legitimate manifestation of
evolution working within society. In this instance it seems to be
the majority declaring the folkway undesirable through democratic
action.
That may be part of a society's evolution in the broader sense of
the term, but it is no more a part of the Hayekian process I
described than a minority declaring a folkway unacceptable through
the orders of a military junta.
Is there no room in your understanding of "Hayekian evolution"
for anything less then your desired outcome?
Where did that strawman come from? Hayekian evolution has produced
plenty of things I don't personally care for, though I wouldn't
outlaw them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245