ITALY: Can't Fend Off Fendi

This evening, I was meandering the streets of Venice, enjoying the old architecture, the cobblestoned streets, and the canal-view restaurants, when I looked up and saw this billboard. Interestingly, on all the streets that I had walked, this was the only billboard I saw...or at least the only one I noticed.

I must admit that while it is a relatively appealing billboard, it felt totally out of place on these charming Venician streets. To be frank, I was enjoying a break from the "outer world," where taxis honk their horns, cars dodge pedestrians, and billboards hawk their wares. In a sense, I felt like I had warped back in time to a gentler, kinder world where people cared about more than the brand name of their sunglasses.

But, on all other fronts, the charming city of Venice did not disappoint.

Why Do LGBT Activists Want Obama to Say He Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Robin McGehee's essay in Huffington Post criticizes President Obama for declining to support same-sex marriage. A New York Times article also reports that several LGBT advocates are angry that the president refuses to support same-sex marriage.

Why should Obama, however, support this particular issue? McGehee says that Obama should support same-sex marriage for two reasons: 1. in order to lead and 2. to fulfill a campaign promise:

Presidents lead. They take principled stands, based on their values and convictions, and then they work to create a better world. And this president promised his LGBT supporters on the campaign trail that he would be their "fierce advocate." We took him at his word.

Sadly, he isn't living up to his promises....

This argument is not entirely true. Obama certainly promised to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. And when he fell short of that promise in the past, he received a great deal of criticism (including from this blog).

Yet, Obama never promised to support same-sex marriage. Instead, he has always stated his opposition to it. During the Democratic primaries, each of the leading Democratic contenders -- including Hillary Clinton and Obama -- opposed same-sex marriage. Accordingly, the fact that Obama refuses to do so now should not surprise people who actually listened during his campaign.

Also, it is unclear what LGBT rights movements would gain if Obama suddenly shifted course and supported same-sex marriage. A sudden change in position might look contrived. Also, it would not translate into any immediate policy gains. Marital law is still subject to state control. Federal law could overturn state law on this issue, but this would require a ruling by the Supreme Court. Many LGBT legal advocates, however, do not want the Supreme Court involved with such a decision because it could backfire. No one is exactly sure how Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, will swing.

McGehee also notes that several conservatives, including Dick Cheney and Laura Bush, have recently expressed support for same-sex marriage. There is one major distinction between Obama, Bush and Cheney: Only Obama is seeking national office. Many former politicians have embraced same-sex marriage, now that they no longer depend upon voters for their professional lives. Thus, the comparison falls quite short. Yes -- this position acknowledges that Obama makes political calculations, but all politicians do this. Rather than seeing Obama as some fierce messianic figure descending from above to unshackle the downtrodden of the Earth, savvy voters must view him as a politician seeking votes and reelection. Clearly, Obama has decided that opposing same-sex marriage will not cost him too many votes.

Finally, LGBT groups could probably get more mileage if they pressed Obama on issues on which he has direct influence. Marriage is regulated by state law. Federal law takes marriage into account in many entitlement and other programs, but Obama has stopped defending DOMA. Federal constitutional law can trump any contrary state law, but the Supreme Court has not held that denying same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Although the President could make such a declaration, he could not enjoin the operation of contrary state law. Furthermore, his opinion would not necessarily cause any particular judge to rule that same-sex marriage prohibitions violate the Constitution. In other words, the gains from pushing Obama on this issue seem speculative at best.

LGBT groups, however, have engaged in highly effective advocacy by pushing Obama on issues over which he has control. Marital policy is not one of those concerns. ENDA, a proposed statute that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, however, could use presidential support. Rather than pushing Obama to move on an issue in a way that no other serious Democratic contender has done, perhaps LGBT groups would gain a lot more if they pushed Obama and Congress on ENDA.

If Congress passed ENDA, LGBT individuals in all states would receive formal protection against employment discrimination. LGBT folks who are more economically vulnerable would likely benefit more from the passage of ENDA than wealthier gays and lesbians, whose wealth provides some cushion against discrimination -- and allows them to relocate to gay friendly jurisdictions.

The marriage debate raises the issue of class stratification within LGBT communities. Symbolism does very little for people struggling financially. In many ways, however, the arguments for same-sex marriage have a lot to do with symbolic, rather than material, change. ENDA on the other hand would provide at least formal protection to LGBT people with respect to their livelihoods. It is unclear why marital rights should have so much more prominence than basic protections for LGBT workers.

UPDATES:

A version of this essay also appears on the Huffington Post.

The Wall Street Journal reports that at least two major New York companies have said they will now withhold benefits from same-sex domestic partners; now these couples must marry in order to obtain benefits.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Health Care Reform Act

Today, a federal court of appeals upheld the health care reform legislation. The plaintiffs argued that Congress lacked the authority to pass the legislation and, specifically, to penalize individuals for not purchasing health insurance. A majority of the appeals panel held that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to enact the legislation. Although one judge dissented, none of the judges seem bothered by the "action"/"inaction" distinction that opponent of the legislation have asserted. None of the judges agreed that the penalty was a tax.

Opponents of the law have argued that while Congress can regulate economic "activity" under its Commerce Clause authority, it cannot regulate "inactivity" -- or the status of being uninsured. The court ruled that the penalty allows Congress to regulate activities including self-insurance, which drives up the price of medical services and insurance in the interstate markets. I have made a similar argument on this blog (see, e.g., here). Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog provides a nice summary of the ruling.

ITALY: Luggage Roulette

Have you ever wondered who owns the first bags that appear on the luggage carousel at the airport? Because, quite frankly, they always seem to go around and around and around ... with no one ever claiming those lonely, stray suitcases. As those one or two pieces of luggage pass you too many times to count, you continue to stare at the carousel, thinking that your luggage will suddenly appear, as if by magic.

Well, that happened to me today at the Venice airport in Italy. As I continued to peruse the pieces of luggage circling the carousel, it began to dawn on me that I was staring at a life size roulette wheel ... that happened to be advertising Casino Di Venezia. I must have read the name of the casino at least 12 or 15 times before my giant-sized green bag finally made its way to my side.

I love nontraditional advertising. It's ads like this that kind of sneak up on you, grab your attention, and then go on their merry way, leaving you informed - and possibly persuaded - in the process.

Molto intelligente.

HUNGARY: Have A Coke, A Kifli & A Smile

While in Hungary, I stopped to feast my eyes (and my stomach) upon kifli, fluffo, zservo, beigli, dobos torte, and countless other delectable treats at a local Budapest bakery.

In an instant, I flashed back to the days when my Grandmother (who immigrated to the U.S. from Croatia in the early 1900's) would make strudel, potica, and other favorites from her homeland. As kids, we welcomed grandma's treats, without a second thought to where the recipes originated from.

As I sat at a small cafe table enjoying my fruit-filled kifli, I noticed this Coca-Cola ad. I found it interesting on a number of levels:

1. I can't ever remember seeing pastries paired with Coca-Cola - it doesn't seem like a natural fit to me...kind of an overload on sugar.

2. This ad had quite a vintage feel to it, despite the new "Open Happiness" logo on the bottom.

3. I didn't need to be able to read the words to understand what the ad was saying.

Interestingly, despite a language barrier and an ocean separating Hungary from the United States, this ad did its job. It welcomed me to enjoy a Coca-Cola with one of the delectable pastries on display at this fine bakery ... without a second thought to where I originated from.

Rapunzel Lets Down Her Hair For Pantene

"Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair."

In order to convince Canadian consumers that new Pantene Anti-Breakage Shampoo is all it's cracked up to be, Pantene delivered a guerrilla campaign that made people stop and take note.

Pantene hung long braids from the windows of buildings throughout Toronto. Perched on the top of the braid hung a man climbing to reach his Rapunzel.

The message? Pantene's new Anti-Breakage Shampoo is so strong you could climb on it.

I would give Pantene a solid A for breaking through the clutter, while simultaneously slamming home their single-minded message.

McDonald's Does The Hand Jive

Have you ever heard of Suzanne Cleary and Peter Harding? They are famous Irish dancers who have appeared on stage with Riverdance, as well as other Irish dance productions around the world. 

But, their talents extend beyond doing fancy moves with their feet ... to doing fancy moves with their hands and arms, too.  

Last year, Cleary and Harding created a video that showed the world just how "handy" they were. Their debut YouTube sensation, "We No Speak No Americano," has racked up 7.5 million hits since its debut on July 25, 2010, entertaining people around the world.

Later that year, Cleary & Harding  put their hand-dancing skills to work for McDonald's in this video, by performing a four-handed flash mob while drinking Caramel Mocha at a McDonald's McCafe. 

 

I must admit that I would sit up and take note if Suzanne and Peter showed up at my local McDonald's.