Blazers & Timbers endorse same sex marriage

[BrianFromWA]

Taking a stand for equal rights for gun carriers is really helping Starbucks out.

 

[Shooter]

What a sad day in the history of the Blazer franchise.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So then is Rupert Murdoch's Faux News media empire going to endorse the Blazers endorsing gay marriage?

I can't wait to see that.

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.

Good press for whom exactly? The Blazers? Does it really help them? They're preaching to the choir in Portland. That's like coming out and publicly saying that the Prius is a great car! If Portland was a conservative city, then it would be news if a pro team came out in favor of gay marriage, but Portland isn't OKC or Texas.

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:

What a sad day in the history of the Blazer franchise.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

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.

 

[barfo]

I am not arguing whether gay marriage is right or wrong. I am in favor of gay marriage. I am in favor of equal rights. That's not the issue here.

My point is that it alienates a portion of the fans.

Great! Good riddance!

The only reason why these teams came out in favor of gay marriage is because they're located in Portland. It's a popular opinion in this area. Would you see a team in a predominantly conservative region come out in favor of gay marriage publicly?

Yes I would like to see that. Why wouldn't I want them to announce that they are douchebags?

I'm not talking about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It doesn't even matter what issue it is. I don't think sports teams should come out publicly about political issues. Period. How would you feel if a team in Texas or Oklahoma came out against gay marriage? It would piss you off, right?

Not at all, it would merely confirm my suspicions.

barfo

 

[Boob-No-More]

If someone gets offended by an organization supporting equal rights for all law abiding citizens, they deserve to be offended.

BNM

 

[Mediocre Man]

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?

 

[crandc]

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.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

“The Portland Trail Blazers are in support of the Freedom to Marry and Religious Protection ballot initiative. We do so as believers in individual choice as a fundamental right of all people.”

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.

 

[Mediocre Man]

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.

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.

 

[Natebishop3]

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.

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.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

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.

 

[crandc]

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.

 

[Mediocre Man]

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

 

[julius]

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.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

PORTLAND -- The Portland Trail Blazers, Timbers, and Thorns are the first major U.S. professional sports organizations to come out in support of same-sex marriage.
Supporters hope to get a measure to legalize gay marriage on the November ballot in 2014.
The Timbers and Thorns made the announcement through a statement from owner Merritt Paulson, saying the organizations are proud to support gay marriage.
Later, the Blazers also released a statement backing the effort, saying they are "believers in individual choice as a fundamental right of all people."
Friday night was the annual gala for Basic Rights Oregon.
Amy Ruiz, a spokeswoman for Oregon United for Marriage said sports fans really laid the groundwork for the effort.
"This is just incredible news. We were so excited to get the endorsement from the Portland Timbers and the Portland Thorns. You know their fans have been remarkable on the issue. We have been collecting signatures at a lot of games for the last ten weeks or so," she said.
Over the summer, three of the Portland Thorns joined an effort called athlete ally, which is an initiative to end homophobia in sports.


http://www.kgw.com/news/Blazers-Tim...-teams-to-support-gay-marriage-227517091.html

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.

 

[julius]

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 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!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Blazers at a Timbers game:

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Blazers at a Timbers game:

Crazy game last night!

Are the low budget Timbers really in first place?

Go Timbers

 

[e_blazer]

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.

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.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If the Blazers can help a movement that will allow same sex marriages in Oregon . . . they will have transcended what most people think about professional sport franchises (it's a business all about making money) and taken an active step to effect the community in which they play.

 

[julius]

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.

The Blazers were just expressing their first amendment rights.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Sports teams are very active in local politics. Arena funding, zoning, taxes, development. To say that a sports team shouldn't be involved in politics is crazy. They are, they're proud, get used to it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Bob Costas, in the powerful halftime slot of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," joined in the growing sentiment that the Washington Redskins' nickname is offensive and the team should change it.

In an even-handed essay, Costas said that the name is demeaning, despite no ill will being intended by anyone involved with the Redskins, including owner Daniel Snyder, or their fans. President Barack Obama recently said he would consider changing the name if he was the owner of the team, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league needs to consider the issue.

During his halftime essay, Costas brought up complaints about other team names like Braves, Warriors or Chiefs, and how that seems like "political correctness run amok," but said the Redskins nickname is different.

"These nicknames honor, rather than demean," Costas said.


Costas said names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas are trickier, but are OK if the "symbols are appropriately respectful," something MLB's Cleveland Indians and its Chief Wahoo mascot haven't always lived up to.

Costas, whose halftime essays on end-zone celebrations in 2011 and gun control in 2012 became hot-button topics, closed his thoughts on the Redskins' name by saying it can justifiably be seen as offensive.

Here's the full transcript of Costas' essay:

"With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.”

"Let's start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don't think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended.

Should NBC get involved in this political issue?

Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do . .

 

[e_blazer]

The Blazers were just expressing their first amendment rights.

No doubt. Paul Allen has the absolute right to use his team to say whatever he wants on a political topic. Everywhere we turn these days people are yelling at each other over a multitude of topics. I guess I just enjoy having one section of the morning news where I don't have to be thinking about politics.

 

[e_blazer]

Sports teams are very active in local politics. Arena funding, zoning, taxes, development. To say that a sports team shouldn't be involved in politics is crazy. They are, they're proud, get used to it.

Now, if we could just get SPD to shut his trap, we'd have accomplished something important.

 

[julius]

No doubt. Paul Allen has the absolute right to use his team to say whatever he wants on a political topic. Everywhere we turn these days people are yelling at each other over a multitude of topics. I guess I just enjoy having one section of the morning news where I don't have to be thinking about politics.

there's always the classified section.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Now, if we could just get SPD to shut his trap, we'd have accomplished something important.

Ouch! Why all the hate from everyone today?

 

[e_blazer]

there's always the classified section.

You must not read the Personals section.

 

[e_blazer]

Ouch! Why all the hate for everyone today?

Just using my first amendment rights to express my opinion about something that would improve the community.