It’s a fact: People are 67% more likely to move to our side when they hear from people they know.
This should make each and every single one of us sit up and take notice. If you wonder why everyone in this campaign continues to hit hard on having the conversation, this is the reason. People are 67% more likely to vote NO when they hear from us. This is especially true if you are LGBT.
If you aren’t sure where to start, I just posted 13 Tips on having a conversation about marriage. Start there. Minnesotan’s United has an entire section dedicated to having conversations. Be sure to check it out!
You may remember a post I shared a couple weeks ago regarding Target Corp. and their neutral stance on the marriage amendment. Well, have I got news for you!
Last Sunday, the retailer announced a “Wear it with Pride” campaign featuring a collection of Pride tshirts just in time for summer. Tshirts include words like “Harmony” and “Pride.” One design in the collection was created by rocker Gwen Stefani and reads, “Love is Love.” Even better, 100% of the entire purchase price is being donated to the Family Equality Council (an organization working to promote equality for LGBT families).
Almost immediately, Target began receiving backlash from groups like Minnesota for Marriage and the American Family Association for, and I quote, “ramming same-sex marriage down the throats of the American people.” (source)
When groups like the AFA make such ridiculous statements, it mobilizes the LGBT community and their allies who help refute these claims. One of the posts I read last night said that Target was “attacking traditional marriage.” About half a dozen people posted in response asking the author how a collection of tshirts is threatening their marriage. One poster called out the irony behind leaders who make these claims and the fact that some of them have had three to four of their own “traditional marriages!” That made me chuckle.
In response to the hubbub, Target released the following statement:
Target supports inclusivity and diversity in every aspect of our business and has a long history of supporting the LGBT community through giving, volunteerism and event sponsorship and participation. Target does not believe that a constitutional fight over the issue is good for Minnesota or the state’s ability to attract jobs and grow the economy. Consistent with our long-standing support of civic engagement, we are encouraging our team members to exercise their right to vote.
Yeah. Read that again:
Target does not believe that a constitutional fight over the issue is good for Minnesota or the state’s ability to attract jobs and grow the economy.
I was sitting at my desk when one of my co-workers emailed me the link to theKare11.com article and I was floored! While Target has a long history of supporting the LGBT community (Pride, Project 515, Red Ribbon Ride, AIDS Walk, Bridge for Youth, Out & Equal, domestic partner benefits, partner discount, partner leave to name a few), I’m not sure I was expecting to see a statement like this considering the controversy over the Minnesota Forward donation a couple years back (which I talked about in my previous blog post). But I’ll take it!
Minnesota for Marriage has already used all of this to mobilize their base asking for each person to donate $100 to offset the dollars Target will donate to the Family Equality Council. I’m expecting that One Million Moms will probably have something to say about this whole situation as well.
But even still, this is a historic day as another one of Minnesota’s Fortune 500 companies has ‘come out’ against this mean-spirited amendment.
Thank you for supporting all families, Target. You make me very proud.
Author’s note: Target team member involved with Target’s LGBTA Business Council.
Right now, attempts are being made in Minnesota’s courts and in the Legislature to redefine marriage or eliminate it altogether…
Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults – not children — will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs.
Source: Minnesota for Marriage
Check out some of the strategic tactics being used by the other side. As always, we see the use of fear, ridiculous claims and of course, children, used as reasons why putting equality for a minority up for a majority vote is a good thing.
Minnesotans, let’s not be fooled by the tactics being used by groups like Minnesota for Marriage. At the end of the day, same sex marriage is already prohibited in the state of Minnesota. This amendment does nothing other than rehash an old debate. Worse, it would write inequality into our state constitution for something that has already been defined here in Minnesota.
Even just the opening of this article gave me goosebumps tonight:
Washington state became the seventh in the nation to put a law on its books recognizing same-sex marriage on Monday, as opponents of the measure signed by Governor Christine Gregoire vowed to try to prevent it from ever taking effect.
Yes, Washington will have a fight on their hands. But the reality is, the tide has turned and soon we will see more and more folks on the right side of history.
Minnesota, this November, it’s our turn to speak up on what’s right. Let’s defeat this hurtful marriage amendment and vote NO!
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard say, “But no one really came out to vote, that’s the only reason he won.” People! That is not the point. This guy is a scary force in the fight against GLBT equality – and if he gains traction and support, of any kind, it’s not good for our cause.
This is especially unnerving to me considering the fact that we have a HUGE fight on our hands this NOvember at the polls as we vote on whether or not we amend our constitution to define marriage in the state of Minnesota.
Make no mistake, Rick Santorum wants to take away the rights of gays and lesbians. This win is not good news, regardless of how many people turned out to vote.
This video has made the rounds this past year. Zach Wahls speaks at a public forum in opposition of House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa. Zach was raised by his two mothers and he shares that his family isn’t so different than any other Iowa family. In fact, he goes on to say that:
We just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government.
Well said, Zach. Well said.
Congrats to the folks at Minnesotans United who raised $315,000 in the last two weeks of 2011 to support the defeat of the hateful Marriage Amendment this year (2012). And thank you to everyone who donated to support equality!
Happy New Year! Here’s to a great 2012!
120 amendments to the Minnesota State Constitution have been approved by voters.
A grand total of ZERO of those amendments sought to limit the rights of Minnesotans.
When you go to vote in November 2012, you might want to ask yourself, “If we start now, who’s next?”
I’ve mentioned before that Marriage between same-sex couples is already a “prohibited marriage” in the state of Minnesota. However, our law goes well beyond just prohibiting same-sex marriage, it also voids any recognition for same-sex marriages performed other states or jurisdictions.
So again, I ask you, what exactly is this marriage amendment accomplishing?
517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.
Sadly, the bill only protects the eight letters in the word “marriage,” while doing nothing to protect the institution itself. The text of the proposed amendment reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”
This is incredibly weak legal language, and will only open up the future possibility of a rogue judge declaring that homosexuals can receive the same rights and benefits of marriage, albeit under another legal name like “civil union.”
Homosexual activists know this, and many have openly advocated for weak marriage amendments, knowing that they can still get everything they want under another name.
Alex Mason, May 2, 2011
On May, 2, Alex Mason wrote on behalf of the Family Policy Network that amendment verbiage was “incredibly weak legal language” and that because of the language used, gays and lesbians could seek the same rights and benefits of marriage under a civil union.
Mr. Mason, on behalf of the Family Policy Network, makes it clear what the proponents of this amendment really want: Ensuring that gays and lesbians in committed relationships have all rights removed. Sadly, that’s what this amendment means to these folks.
This amendment has little to do with actually protecting anything. In states where similar amendments have passed, proponents have sued institutions that offer partner benefits because they are in violation of the constitution. Of course, it would be hateful to say directly that this is the goal. So instead, they hide behind the “protecting marriage” mantra.
Mr. Mason, we know what you really want. And I’m hopeful that Minnesotans see right through your message and join me in voting No in 2012.
April 29, 2011: Republican Ally, Madeline Koch, addresses the Minnesota Senate asking leaders to vote no on adding the marriage amendment to the ballot.
The need for equality and the full acceptance of GLBT people is something Minnesota’s next generation of leaders has already embraced… Never before has our constitution sought to treat people unequally.
…I’d ask that you not let me down as my representatives by putting your own personal beliefs and benefits in the way of equality. Please vote no on these bills.
Thanks, Madeline. You inspire me.
Take a moment to watch this. Even if you just watch the first minute where this father of two starts his message with, “It wouldn’t be pretty. My response to one of my daughters being a lesbian would be, would be a like Katrina hitting New Orleans. It would not be good. It’s about all I can say about… I’m not sure exactly what my reaction would be, but I know that it would be a bad day.”
If you wonder why we need to speak up, engage our allies and educate Minnesota voters, this is that reason. Let’s work to stop the spread of hate in Minnesota.
I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive constitutional amendment from appearing on the ballot, in November 2012, the Legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill. Thus, symbolic as it my be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign or veto it. Without question, I am vetoing it; and I urge Minnesotans to reject this mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American amendment.Gov. Mark Dayton, May 25, 2011
Ironic that the majority leader is stepping down due to an inappropriate relationship, all the time that she was fighting to “protect marriage” in the state of Minnesota. Considering that she is married and has a child, this news only makes it clear that proponents of this amendment aren’t really trying to protect anything. Feels more like a witch hunt to me. In that case, you’ve always got to ask yourself: Who’s next in their crosshairs?