Ben and Jerry’s to launch campaign in support of gay marriage
Unilever brand Ben and Jerry’s will launch a campaign this Thursday in support of gay marriage encouraging voters to elect pro-gay-marriage candidates, regardless of their political party. 
The as-yet unveiled Ben and Jerry’s campaign, which will be launched with major events in most capital cities and will help support marriage equality lobby group Australian Marriage Equality’s (AME) current “Vote4love” campaign.
Ben and Jerry’s brand manager Kalli Swaik said the company did not want to take away from the attention given to marriage equality’s campaign which was launched late last week but rather hope to support that campaign.
“We fully support our partner AME as we announced last week and we support their Vote4love campaign, but we also have our own campaign up our sleeves,” said Swaik.
Still… an american brand weighing in on local politics seems a tad opportunistic… what does Ben & Jerry think about Refugees?
Are Ben and Jerry a married couple? Interesting campaign.
Awesome!
Props to Unilever.
Ben and Jerry got out of that brand a long time ago, so good to see the new custodians sticking to its progressive/stoner/free love roots.
Hey guess what they have refugees in America too. a damm lot more than us and if they are operating in OZ they have a right to advertise how they want
@Alison_F gay marriage is hardly a local issue, and it has bugger all to do with refugees. Everybody is entitled to equality, in marriage and everything else. Congratulations to Ben & Jerrys. If you stop eating it as a result of this campaign then there will be more for the humans.
Oh @Groucho… so boringly grouchy as usual. I completely agree with the samesex topic raised here and elsewhere – that isn’t what I was saying. What I was saying (possibly cynically but, hey) was that it COULD seem opportunistic for a brand to ‘get on this bandwagon’… that’s all. I look forward to hearing your grouchy response 😉 as always…
My Dear Alison_F here was me thinking I detected a whiff of disapproval in your post, especially when you attempted to get the refugee problem in there as well. Here I was commenting on how it seemed, and I seemed to have done you a disservice. Please, bite me.
This won’t make me any more likely to pay $12 for a small tub of ice cream
Who cares if it’s an American brand – good on them for having some guts and taking a stance.
Will definitely influence my next ice cream purchase.
@Alison_F,
You clearly referred to gay marriage as a “local issue”. Your words, not Groucho’s. LGBT rights, including marriage equality, is a national human rights issue. In fact it is an international human rights issue. Weighing in on this controversial issue is hardly “opportunistic”. Ben & Jerry’s will likely be boycotted by the religious right for their courageous stand. Anyway, Ben & Jerry have always been supportive of liberal and progressive stands on human rights, the envronment, and many others. They are respected by people like me for this. BTW, a pint of Ben & Jerry’s is only about $5 (less when on sale) here in Hawaii, where food is extremely expensive. @Sticker Shock must live in Australia or Europe.
Thank you for the Vote 4 Love campaign. I have a gay son whom I love very much and every time, someone stands up for his civil rights anywhere, I cheer! Like I told a Congressman back in the 1990’s, every time someone comes out, the world is a safer place. Now I would add to this that every time someone stands up for respect of Civil Rights, the world is a better, safer place. I’m president of PFLAG Oahu in Hawaii. I hope this campaign goes viral….All we need is Love and Ben & Jerry’s. 😉
As a lesbian, I have NO issue with brands weighing in on movements that assist in the positive progression of Australia. I applaud brands that advocate for human rights, animal rights, and the environment.
Brands like ‘The Catholic Church’ and ‘Sanitarium’ have been, and still continue, influencing government policy to the detriment of this country.
There are clearly two definitions of “marriage”.
The simplistic one is for two people who love each other, marriage is a way of showing that love and dedication. This definition focuses on the adults.
The more profound definition is that marriage is the foundation of a family which is to form the basis for the rearing of children. This definition focuses on children, and creating the best possible, balanced environment for raising children, which is with a father and a mother. The rights of children are conveniently ignored in the hype of “marriage equality” I note.
This writer is far more eloquent than I am: http://richardtwaghorne.wordpr.....-marriage/
I hope Ben & Jerrys (and Mr Rudd) understand that while they will be popular with the part of society who agree with this narrow definition, those who take a broader and more long term view will vote accordingly.
@MattP the writer to whom you refer, Richard T Waghorne might be more eloquent than you but he is still full of shit. The biblical definition of marriage on which his argument rests is outdated, prejudicial and downright dumb in todays context. To tie child rearing to marriage of a man and a women is to deny the worth of children born out of wedlock (a significant number these days), those of single parents, those of same sex parents, and those adopted by other than conventionally married couples. You make the sad mistake of being impressed by someone who is eloquent but unburdened by common sense, decency, and being a worthwhile human being.
@Groucho, an acid filled personal attack does not add any credibility to your argument. Did you even read the full article? Clearly not.
The value of other children is not being questioned. The key issue is what is the best, most ideal environment to raise children.
@MattP to quote from the article that so impresses you “Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman” would, to anyone understanding it, imply that to be bought up outside this framework is somehow inferior. yes, I did read it, and yes I did understand it, and I was not blinded by the supposed eloquence. It doesn’t matter how elegantly you write crap you see, it is still crap.
@ Groucho and @ MattP
Groucho your assessment of both the supposed “best” framework and of MattP is eloquent.
MattP for fear of sounding like I am aiming this as a personal attack I want to make sure that you understand that it is not personal when i express my opinion (which happens to support Groucho’s and goes against what you believe) people who still use the bible as a tool to help define modern society needs to grow and get with the times. Excuse my ignorance for I could be wrong but I also believe that the bible says that in some instances it is still ok to stone people to death…should we live by this definition also???
@Appreciates nice argument, I did not mention the Bible and it was not mentioned in the article I linked to either. You will find Groucho mentioned it, so you should take that issue up with him/her.
My point focuses on protecting the environment which is the most ideal for raising children and the more thorough definition of marriage which provides that. Father + Mother = Children = That’s Marriage.
It is interesting that the best environment for raising children, being a mother and father married in the traditional sense, is supported by thousands of years experience and millions of families first hand experience.
However, if Groucho and others disagree (and, I note, fail to provide a superior alternative for children) then resorting to name calling is considered by them an adequate and robust response.
It is typical of the illogical argument for “marriage equality” by using a dumbed-down definition to suit the needs of adults and ignore the rights of children to be raised by both a father and a mother.
“Supported by thousands of years experience and millions of families first hand experience”.
Not really…
For most of our history, humans lived in promiscuous tribal structures in which children were raised communally.
Monogamy (as we understand it today) is post-agriculture and profoundly flawed.
The nuclear family (also flawed) is an even more recent invention.
“Sex At Dawn” would be a good book for you to start with.
Shame that it takes an American brand to have the guts to do it. Australian brands are still steeped in conservatism
@MattP………………….oops!
@Groucho and Tom Donald. “Most of our history” is a convenient exaggeration and not all humans lived in primitive tribal structures. Monogamy goes back far further than you give it credit. “Profoundly flawed” is your opinion only. Oops indeed.
The fact remains: The best environment to raise children remains in a family with a father and a mother, and this has the foundation of traditional marriage.
@MattP, pretty sure this is a marketing site where we should be focusing on, errr, marketing. Please take your Family First-like rant elsewhere. Peace out.