Target: No donations planned for gay ...

Target: No donations planned for gay groups

There are 4 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Aug 16, 2010, titled Target: No donations planned for gay groups. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Target Corp. said Monday it won't give money to gay-friendly causes to quiet the uproar over a $150,000 donation that helped support a Minnesota governor candidate who opposes gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

basia from Tower MN

Ely, MN

#1 Aug 17, 2010
I think corporations had best stop donating to political causes and just give $ to the United Way and maybe the Salvation Army. I am sure there are those that don't approve of some of the "christian" stuff in the Salvation Army though. Can't win with the power of the gay rights groups. I believe the more they push for marriage, the more they are going to get pushed back (unfortunately) into the closet. The marriage thing is just a little over the top for most folks. A civil union makes more sense and would be more palatable to most of us "straights and traditionalists.. Face it, marriage is about 1 man and 1 woman- end of story.
one man and one woman

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Aug 17, 2010
Sainz said the HRC has not decided how it will allocate the $150,000 it plans to spend on Minnesota campaigns.

"But at the top of our agenda is the next governor of Minnesota will hopefully be in a position to sign a marriage equality bill," Sainz said. "Obviously, that is a priority for our community and having a Legislature that will pass that bill is equally important."



The Gay marriage issue was already settled in MN with Baker v. Nelson. Marriage is a State issue and not a Federal issue.

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971

1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.

Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145,§ 3, subd.3).

2. Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment./2/

These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court...

...The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment... more>>>
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/ba...
DumbForLife

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Aug 17, 2010
In the "olden days" this was commonly called "a shakedown".

Today it is called "community activism".
Bus Driver

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Aug 19, 2010
DumbForLife wrote:
In the "olden days" this was commonly called "a shakedown".
Today it is called "community activism".
Yes. YOU names fit wells!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Big Box Retailers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wal-Mart may re-examine Vallejo store (Feb '08) Jul 27 Walter 29
News To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christ... (Jun '09) Jul '16 Sam 92
News Target stock plummets as "transgender" bathroom... Jul '16 Hillary liar liar 110
News Opinions divided, politely, over gay pride marc... Jul '16 Logic Analysis 5
News 'A danger to wives and daughters': Petition to ... Apr '16 Mayor 12
News Wal-Mart opening slated for late summer Apr '16 Elmer 17
News Milton Mayor Gord Krantz poised to become the n... (Aug '14) Jan '16 tricky 13
More from around the web