Disney opens Fairy Tale Weddings to gay couples

[mousepod]

Finally. (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0545360920070405)

[innerSpaceman]

Wow. I'm sorta of two minds about this. The gay fairy (tale) weddings will not really be weddings. That's not up to Disney ... and I would have never faulted them for requiring the couples to actually get married.


Call me a cynic (everone does;) ), but this smacks of Disney wanting to pry some more money from a demographic with disposable income. (Ironic since it's largely the lack of married-life kidlings which allows that demo to have such disposable dollars.)

[Isaac]

I agree with you iSm. It seems like Disney's only interested in "Fairy" Fairy Tale Weddings cause of the money.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So if they cater to gays it's just trying to squeeze a buck out of an untapped market, but if they don't, they get labeled homophobes.

Lame. I think this is great, and I'm sure there are quite a few couples who are thrilled to hear the news.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I have to agree with mp and CP, you're damning them 'cause they do.

I have known several gay couples who go all-out for their commitment ceremonies. Certainly I know several couples who refuse to do anything until they're guaranteed all legal rights, too, but that doesn't mean those who choose to commit, sans true legal rights, shouldn't have every opportunity to do so.

And as far as the kiddies change the level of disposable income, I think you'll find that the majority of couples in the process of getting married do not yet have children.

[innerSpaceman]

^ heheh, good point.


But I didn't damn them if they don't. And I think it's retarded for anyone to accuse an entity of homophobia because they won't let people who can't get married get married. Take it up with the legislature, 'cause it's not Disney's fault.

To me, this is simple money-grubbing pandering. You know I'm the first to rail against denying gays the right to marry. But Disney wasn't doing that.



Anyways, I can't wait to see what the anti-gayday crowd has to say about this!

[CoasterMatt]

Isn't the whole reason Disney is doing the Fairy Tale Weddings at ALL, money?

[Alex]

Of course it is in their financial interest to do it. While it would be nice if they said "damn the financial consequences, full speed ahead!" but that's not a reasonable expectation.

The fact that it is a financial gain is in itself remarkable in that it would indicate that this more to be made from people who would be added to the customer list than lost to people who won't go on it now.

If the wealthy class is generally on the conservative side and they're really the only ones who can afford these weddings then I'd say that it is a good thing if the math makes sense for Disney. It is also a good thing if the math doesn't make sense but they said screw it.

[thecorndogwalker]

I just think over the top weddings are just that. Over the top. It is meaningful to some people. But as a gay man and knowing many queens with money who adore disney they will make some big bucks.. its smart and very business savvy.. but didnt Walt say give the public what they want.. and homosexuals love drama, camp and have money....

I am just wondering if the matching tuxedos are going to be in the prince charming or hercules collection?

[CoasterMatt]

I wanna see two Ariels hook up :)

[Kevy Baby]

Isn't the whole reason Disney is doing the Fairy Tale Weddings at ALL, money?Oh fine... just state the obvious :p

[Morrigoon]

Okay, so if you pay for costumed characters, do you get Mickey and Minnie, or Chip and Dale?

[lashbear]

OR bRER bEAR.........

[mistyisjafo]

So if they cater to gays it's just trying to squeeze a buck out of an untapped market, but if they don't, they get labeled homophobes.

Lame. I think this is great, and I'm sure there are quite a few couples who are thrilled to hear the news.


I agree. It's a company folks. They're there to make money. I'm sure this move was do to the potential law suit someone was stricking up. It's a win-win for Disney. They get more money and look good doing it plus no one sues them! BONUS!!

[Capt Jack]

yup. right up until you get the 'catering to sinners' groups threatening boycott.

a win-win even though you cant win-win them all. :rolleyes:
kudos to big D for taking the high road.
(and if they can make a buck at it...so much the better)

[innerSpaceman]

Um, how can you sue Disney for not allowing illegal marriages? Pulease, that one's a non-starter .... and I know lawsuits.

[Chernabog]

Well I'm suing Disney for not letting me appear in my traditional Vaginismus garb at their parks. Unwashed heathens.

[Alex]

Does Disney sell a marriage or pomp surrounding a marriage? What evidence of a legally binding marriage license have they previously required? I honestly don't know how that worked (at some point in the process did you have to show Disney the license to continue with the package)?

If it is just a service offered without requirement of the government endorsement then I would think that ability to sue for denial of the service would fall to the question of whether homosexuals are a protected class. Disney certainly wouldn't be able to deny a non-governmental service (which the ceremony is) on the basis of race.

Not that I think such a lawsuit would have much chance.

[innerSpaceman]

You have to show them a valid marriage license to even have a wedding on their property ... not even of the Fairy Tale (or potentially Fairy) variety.

[Alex]

Then yeah, you could hardly complain.

But if that will no longer be the case I wonder who will start complaining now.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I think it's great, personally. I figure anything straight folks get, gay folks should be allowed, too. Here there's the matter of wedding license, not yet allowed, but let's burn one bridge at a time.

[sleepyjeff]

I know I am a million years behind the times....but I thought only Japanese couples could marry at Disneyland:confused:

[NirvanaMan]

Marriage should simply be banned for all.

Problems solved.

[MickeyLumbo]

yes, a marriage license has been required prior to the contract being signed.

yes, there was a potential pending lawsuit.

yes, Disney is not a non-profit organization.

yes, Mickey and Minnie are available for a 30 minute set at $1,070. additional appearances can be added for an additional charge.

yes, it is a great business decision.

yes, i know.


(you think the mice are big bucks, how 'bout 4 fanfare trumpeteers at a rate of from $1,275. and Cinderella's coach from $1,850)


you can please some of the people...

way to go, Disney!

[MickeyLumbo]

I know I am a million years behind the times....but I thought only Japanese couples could marry at Disneyland:confused:


that used to be the case, but that has changed now.:)

[Gemini Cricket]

I say cool.
It's better than being ignored.
:)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Marriage should simply be banned for all.

Problems solved.

That would certainly be one solution.

[Nephythys]

Anyways, I can't wait to see what the anti-gayday crowd has to say about this!


They shouldn't mind- as long as the couples don't wear red. :p

[lilbigguy]

Okay, so if you pay for costumed characters, do you get Mickey and Minnie, or Chip and Dale?

Wow, that didn't even occur to me! How cute would Chip & Dale be for a guy + guy ceremony?!? ;) I think it could be kinda fun to have the evil stepsisters "crash" the reception!