Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Macy's attacked for support of gay marriage

January 30, 2012 @ 3:45 pm (Updated: 1:28 pm - 1/31/12 )

As more companies show their support for same-sex marriage, a few customers are pushing back.

Starbucks, Microsoft, Group Health Cooperative, Nike, Real Networks, and Vulcan all recently announced their support of gay marriage in Washington state.

"While some of our employees literally grew up around the corner, others have come from every state and almost 150 countries around the world. There simply is no substitute for their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills and experiences," says Brad Smith, Microsoft's VP for legal and corporate affairs.

Spokespeople for those companies tell me their support of marriage equality has been "well received." But that's not the case for Macy's, a national department store chain.

A Macy's catalogue was sent to homes with a subtle message supporting same-sex marriage.The wedding cake topper in the back of a stylish, classic automobile features two grooms. The close up version of the ad, though fuzzy, shows a same-sex couple on top of the cake.

Macy

MacyClose

A group affiliated with the American Family Association has started an email campaign urging Macy's to pull the image - which does not appear in the online version of the company's catalogue.

"Just because gay marriage is legal in a few states does not mean this is appropriate marketing. As a conservative customer I will not support it," they say. The group also calls Macy's decision to support gay marriage "an irresponsible choice" that is "highly offensive and not family-friendly advertising."

Macy's has made no secret of its support of marriage equality. A 2008 advertisement in California stated, "First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate." That was before California voters repealed granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples with Proposition 8.

A House committee held a hearing on the marriage equality measure on Monday. The House Judiciary committee approved it on a 7-6 party line vote. The full Senate is expected to vote on their version of the bill Wednesday, with full house action to occur shortly thereafter. The bill would then head to Governor Chris Gregoire’s desk for her signature. She will sign it.

Opponents wishing to challenge the new law would have until early June to collect 120,557 valid signatures. That's the amount required to place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot.

Related: Wording of Washington's marriage equality bill

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (65)


  • Add A Comment

  • Sean wrote...
    Brad Smith says it all...
    January 30, 2012 3:30 pm
    The Microsoft spokesperson said it all: "...others have come from every state and almost 150 countries around the world. There simply is no substitute for their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills and experiences." So mr. Smith, we should also not support English as a STANDARD, I assume, or driving on the RIGHT side of the road, or other norms and standards we've upheld for, in some c ases. CENTURIES (like the definition of "marriage") because others are coming here and we need to lower and adapt our standards and mores for them... right? ANYTHING GOES. That's where we're going. Marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman, folks. PERIOD. Call me a hater, I'm sure -- but I don't hate any gay people. I just don't see why they/you INSIST on being considered EXACTLY the same as heterosexuals, because you are NOT. When it comes to raising children, there still needs to be a highest standard that upholds what women and men separately bring to a family. Men are not the same as women are not the same as men, and both genders is irreplaceable. We at least need to uphold an ideal; a standard. You should still have all the same rights, but you are NOT the same... The erosion continues...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cnc in port orchard wrote...
    Nice
    January 30, 2012 6:18 pm
    Hey Sean. Your response so well articulated my feelings as to this issue. I love all, be you gay, straight, white, black or in between. I do however fear for our future by this trend occurring in our culture. Children very much need a Mother/Father role model. Males and females have different skill sets and provide needed ideology each. The rearing of our children is my main objection to legalization. As I stated, I love you all BUT I don't feel just anyone should raise a child. No. I feel a child would be better served knowing that there are differing views of the world. That physical/spacial abilities (sports/math) are very important and so is verbal acuity (relating ideas) but that, as a species, both are served better by different sexes within our species. This debate will rage on and same-sex marriage will one day be the norm but again, I do fear for our future as a species.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Tracy White wrote...
    @ Sean - RE: Standards
    January 30, 2012 7:59 pm
    Standards change and evolve. That's why you're posting this on a web site as opposed to writing op-ed on a dead-tree newspaper. What you see as erosion, many see as evolution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mills62joe wrote...
    huh?
    January 31, 2012 1:12 pm
    could you rephrase this particularly awesome thought because it clearly is illuminating and insightful. i think i can speak for all of us we breathlessly as we await more of your wisdom.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jasonut29 wrote...
    Whatever
    January 31, 2012 9:11 pm
    @Sean....really you have no clue do you!? I can assure you my four kids would argue with you about if they needed to have a woman in their life to see what a family was. They are all healthy, happy and well adjusted and the two who are now of age are str8. Nothing they saw in my partner and my life hurt them or deprived them of anything that their friend who had str8 parents had......Get over yourself....learn this country is NOT about what Faux news says....but of course continue to be closed minded....you are on the wrong side of history, just as those who argued blacks and whites shouldn't be together or women shouldn't vote.....done deal bud I'll be marrying my partner here shortly!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • David in Houston wrote...
    @ Sean
    February 1, 2012 12:27 pm
    60 years ago, marriage was defined as "one man and one woman of the same race". Over 70% of the public was against interracial marriage. So to those people "marriage will never be anything other than between a man and a woman of the same race". By the way, procreation has NEVER been a requirement in getting married. So why are you applying special rules to gay couples, that don't apply to straight ones? Based on your logic, Newt Gingrich wouldn't have been able to marry his adulterous third wife, because they are definitely not going to have children. No doubt, you must have the utmost respect for the sanctity of his third "till death do us part" marriage, right? Are you starting to see the hypocrisy of your position yet? I dare you to support Newt's third sham-of-a-marriage, and deny that same right to gay couples that have been together for decades. If you truly believed that children should only be raised by their mother and fathers, then you should be in support of banning divorce, and preventing straight couples from giving their children up for adoption. That is the ONLY way to keep children with their biological parents. Of course, you would never support either of those positions, because that would actually impact straight people's lives; and we can't have that can we? But discriminate against gay people that you don't know... sure thing!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    SEAN
    February 8, 2012 7:57 am
    WELL SAID!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ye Olde Hagge wrote...
    Quick question...
    January 30, 2012 6:30 pm
    When filing out forms (taxes and such) will there now be the option of "Gay Married" on it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GoSeaHox wrote...
    How about just
    January 31, 2012 8:34 am
    "Married"?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WendyF wrote...
    Exactly
    January 31, 2012 10:16 am
    Those checked boxes are for census and demographics but, yeah...just married works.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheTruth323 wrote...
    "Gay Married"
    January 31, 2012 11:27 am
    Why would that have to be an option, doesn't married cover it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • EverettGal wrote...
    roll back a few years....
    January 30, 2012 7:45 pm
    ..... Call me a hater, I'm sure -- but I don't hate any BLACK people. I just don't see why they/you INSIST on being considered EXACTLY the same as WHITE PEOPLE, because you are NOT. When it comes to raising children, there still needs to be a highest standard that upholds RACES separately bring to a family. WHITES are not the same as BLACKS are not the same as WHITES, and both RACES is irreplaceable. We at least need to uphold an ideal; a standard. You should still have all the same rights, but you are NOT the same... The erosion continues...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Ev Gal
    January 30, 2012 7:55 pm
    Nice playing of the "racist" card.....again. Can't you liberals come up w/ something else, something original, like an intelligent argument? Obviously not...Again; they have the same rights as you or me. They can wed ANYONE, just not of the same sex. I know that is a difficult concept for a liberal to understand & comprehend, but trust me, it's sound.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • EverettGal wrote...
    HPD 50
    January 30, 2012 8:24 pm
    Maybe YOU should come up with an original argument:

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

    You might particularly be interested in the fifth one down.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Glover W wrote...
    EverettGal
    January 31, 2012 6:46 am
    So you pull up an old document that was stupid to begin with and use that as your argumnet for gay marriage. that we said the same things about intracial marriage many years ago. It is not the same! An inter-racial married man and woman can have children and raise a family. A gay married couple cannot have children but they can adopt and raise the family. What that document you sight was arguing against was mixing of races. Which I don't think anybody who has given it a little thought has a problem with. the genetic differences between people of different races is so small it is almost unoticable. the genetic differences between women and men are huge by comparision. So please, come up with a better argument.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • EverettGal wrote...
    A better argument?
    January 31, 2012 7:53 am
    You've just proven my point, so I think my argument was pretty awesome!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • slandc wrote...
    Glover
    January 31, 2012 12:57 pm
    Basically, at the root level, your argument is that if you can't have kids together then you can't be married. This kind of eliminates a lot of people from getting married doesn't it? Bummer for all those folks who became infertile due to cancer treatments, got married later in life, anyone who got sterilized or had tubes tied, all those folks who had hysterectomies, and any and all people who simply don't produce enough sperm. See, there are a lot of them out there...more than you might think and quite possibly (likely) more than the number of gay couples who would like to get married.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • che8717 wrote...
    You are correct EverttGal
    January 31, 2012 9:08 pm
    By the wat to those Gays lovers and Gays.. SHOW ME GAY GENE. WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC and BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE? GAYS WERE NO BORN GAYS. IT IS A CHOICE!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jasonut29 wrote...
    DUH You missed the point...probably not the first time!
    January 31, 2012 9:20 pm
    The racist card was NOT played it was used as an example of he same old argument that was used in the 60s....Its a civil rights issue....funny how if a gay person uses the racial example we get criticized BUT if you right wingers use the Bible we're supposed be afraid and accept the preaching of a people who fail to understand even the writings of their own creation. I was once a Christian but people like you have cleared the way for me to follow Christ without hate or prejudice...just like the Bible says to do.....once again...get over yourself you are on the wrong side of history.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Keitho wrote...
    SAME RIGHTS
    February 8, 2012 8:01 am
    Noone has the right to marry anyone they want. I cannot marry my mother, my sister or my already married neighbor. I watched a news program regarding this and the gay advocate could not deny that he has equal rights in this state. His only arguement was that he wanted to marry his partner so he would not have to explain his relationship. This proves my point that this is all about gays trying to normalize homosexuality. It is not about rights. We are trashing thousands of years of societal order to please a handful of homosexuals and most would not take advantage of marriage anyway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    good luck with the muslims
    January 30, 2012 7:51 pm
    death is the punishment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Gosh, how to break this to the group with the "raising children" argument....
    January 30, 2012 9:23 pm
    Let me put this delicately- the act of getting married isn't what makes a baby. Lots and lots and lots of gay couples, of both genders, are *already* raising kids in Washington State. A woman does not need to be married to go to a sperm bank. A man does not need to be married to hire a surrogate mother.

    Will the next straw man please stand up?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rebelnocause wrote...
    I won't bother...
    January 30, 2012 9:44 pm
    signing the petition or voting the ballot, if we get our own Prop 8. Even if it passed, they'll just "shop a judge" to overturn it. they complain about theocracy...??? how about tyranny.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    tyranny?
    January 31, 2012 11:42 am
    signing the petition or voting the ballot, if we get our own Prop 8. Even if it passed, they'll just "shop a judge" to overturn it. they complain about theocracy...??? how about tyranny. ---------------------- I see little if any tyranny in the folks trying to get gay marriage passed - however, I see quite a bit in your comment in the way you claim correctness over everyone else with a different opinion on this issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Regardless of what they think of bender marriage...
    January 30, 2012 10:01 pm
    They charge Nordstroms prices but deliver JC Penny stuff. I didn't shop at the Bon before and won't now regardless of their PC diddley-doo over this issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jasonut29 wrote...
    Good
    January 31, 2012 9:23 pm
    Please stay away, then I don't have to deal with the wackos!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ Tracy White
    January 30, 2012 10:55 pm
    Please tell me you understand the difference between standards and technological advances......
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ Ye Olde Hagge
    January 30, 2012 10:59 pm
    As of yet....... AS OF YET ....:

    NO! the Federal government does not recognise gay nor lesbian marriage.

    You have to be patient though.... It won't be long before they will...........

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • NewButCurious wrote...
    Go Macy's
    January 31, 2012 3:12 am
    At the end of the day, from the Government's perspective - this addresses a contract between two adults. This is not lowering the bar. I have no trouble with someone being uncomfortable with Gay concepts - I am heterosexual and wince a bit at the idea; That said, this is about legal marriage. What your personal beliefs are should not effect how other adults live their lives, and two adults should be allowed to engage in whatever contract they wish. There is no threat here.. Reading what I read... "As a conservative customer I will not support it." No one said you had to support it... vote with your dollars however you like. But you do not get to selectively choose the freedoms granted to others. Your morality and your relationship with your chosen God - is not the governments business; If it does not actually impose upon you physically or legally - whats the diff? This is not lowering a standard - this is rising to it. Freedom does not mean freedom to be anyone unless its uncomfortable for you... Freedom is freedom; Or do you have some freedoms you wish taken away? In my book... if it does not actually affect you, I am not even sure you should have a vote! (An oversimplification - maybe; but we have much bigger fish to fry these days. Being gay does not make you more or less courageous, moral, ethical, responsible, adult, or valuable. The real world is hard enough without imagining fears and problems that do not exist. No one is trying to change you.)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • LongTallM wrote...
    Well Said @newbutcurious
    February 2, 2012 5:05 pm
    It really is sad the lack of consideration and hate for others is in the comments here - and the ignorance. These people that spout it takes a man and a woman to raise a child are simply parroting something they heard. I would LOVE to see a study cited that they actually read themselves that validates that point. The funny thing is that there aren't any. I believe you will find that we are better and more prepared and equipped to have children due to the barriers they put up for us. We have to plan, apply, consider - we take months and years. They have to do nothing but have sex irresponsibly and to top it off we get the privilege of sharing the burden of putting their children through school. Open your minds and look up the word Altruism - the basis of ALL religion. Learn it, Live it, Love it...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }