A state law in Arizona has unleashed a torrent of unexpected consequences upon the welfare of the state. The law, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or Arizona SB 1070, was designed as a measure to greatly influence the problem of illegal immigration within the state. The law came amidst complaints to the Federal Government that they were not moving quickly enough on immigration reform, since immigration is by nature a federal liability, not the states'. It is a far-reaching law. Many agree it is a Constitutional violation. Many local law enforcement in Arizona have so far refused to obey the law, saying it puts them unequivocally in a sort of catch-22: obey the law by ostensibly profiling "illegal" immigrants by race, or be fined or reprimanded if other citizens do not think law enforcement officials are being strict enough when questioning "suspicious" people about their immigration status.
On top of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the state's law, other forms of protest have arisen. Now, I can't say for sure that these unintended consequences were unforeseen (as Arizona has had similar issues in the past), but the state legislature would have been wise to consider the possibility of backlash against enacting the law. Equal rights groups have called for boycotts of Arizona; high schools, notably one in Denver, cancelled school trips to the state; hotels in the state have reported troves of cancelled reservations; conferences cancelled; Major League Baseball has threatened to move its All-Star game from the state next year, etc. These various boycotts are feared to wreak havoc on the financial stability of the state and on local businesses. Even the Mexican President has urged travelers to steer clear of the state in fear they would be stopped, harassed, or even arrested due to the new law, which is especially troubling when 1/3 of the state's economy relies on revenue generated by tourists from Mexico. These actions prompted an almost immediate amendment to the law, said to dispel the notion that racial profiling would occur, but really not doing much of anything different.
I won't belabor the point further. Obviously, I disagree with the law. The purpose to this wide array of boycotts is to strike a chord of economic implications associated with the law. Initially people have concentrated their efforts and protests against racial implications of the law, but by boycotting the state, and businesses within the state, suddenly people who would not be directly affected by the law could feel the ramifications of it, and might reconsider their initial support of it. A similar move was reported after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Anger over the reckless greed and gambling of our nation's wealth led to the "Move Your Money" campaign, a push for individuals, small and large businesses, and governments to move their money from the 6 major banks. Wall Street continues even today to hold a smug arrogance over the country, a "If we fail, you fail" superiority only strengthening without reform and punishment. The 'Move Your Money" campaign was a retort, well an attempted response, to say that "No, we don't need you;" and "We don't get burned when you play with fire," stand. It's tough to pinpoint why the movement didn't catch like wildfire: are we scared? lazy? do we only talk big, but when time comes to take a stand, are we unwilling? "Money talks." It sure does. And as we inch closer and closer to a "Corporatocracy" money will speak greater volumes. Luckily, the Arizona boycott carries a bit more weight.
Maybe that knowledge, of how much anger there is pointed at Wall Street right now and how people still failed to act, should make me just stop writing and not even attempt this crazy notion that a similar boycott could be used in response to the fight for equal rights of LGBT individuals. Politicians only react these days when it seems the free market is in jeopardy, and somebody (read: campaign donors) are losing, or will lose money. What if those who fought for the equal rights of gays and lesbians agreed to stop marrying until legislation was passed granting everyone the freedom to marry? That' s a big sacrifice, I know. But take this example: a bachelorette party, who instead of going to a normal club to celebrate go to a gay club because they know they'll be able to have fun without the entirety of the room looking to take them home for a one-night stand. Now put yourselves in the shoes of the homosexuals who frequent these clubs because of the acceptance and comfort afforded them there, and instead have the fact that they cannot legally marry rubbed in their faces all night by these women. I don't blame the women, of course. They would just like to have a good time without having to fend off the advances of horny, single men for an evening; and I don't want to single out this situation, as I'm sure at some time or place a bachelor party has gone to a strip club where a gay woman, or women worked, and the women have felt the same way. But this all speaks to a greater problem: that certain individuals in our country do not have the same luxury, no, the same basic rights as others.
So what would happen if suddenly the wedding registries at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, or Target Stores, Inc. diminished to nothing? What would happen if prime honeymoon destinations suddenly stopped procuring reservations? What would happen if the diamond district in New York saw sales plummet, or your local Fire Hall stopped earning money from weekend receptions? You'd have a lot more people suddenly give a damn about the equal rights of others, people that normally do not need to worry themselves over how many weddings they book because business is booming. (Weddings, on average, generate about $40 billion a year in revenue in the US.). It's a hell of a sacrifice, but if just some people start to put the needs of others ahead of themselves then maybe we can achieve the unprecedented. We can start a call that hopefully would strike where politicians listen, their campaign donations, to end the injustice of inequality.
Okay, I've gone on for quite some time here. So, maybe I'll just leave you with this: Sarah Silverman probably said it best, "How does anyone whose for equal rights get married right now? That's like joining a country club that doesn't accept blacks or Jews." Well said.
No comments:
Post a Comment