Shakedown attempt targets giant Minnesota-based retailer. MoveOn orders boycott of 1,700-plus Target stores. It fails, even though touted by a falsely-premised TV spot — which is rejected by one network, MSNBC-TV. Back-to-school shopping public does not buy into boycott. Target sales increase. The whole squalid story of a tawdry attempt at a shakedown is here… and in Larson's previous article, "Boycotting Target: Ideological Thuggery at Work."
Swooping in like carrion-sniffing vultures, folks associated with "gay rights" tried but failed to shake down Target Corp., the nation's second largest retailer, amid threats – now carried out – of a nationwide boycott. All the hoopla is based on a legal political contribution the company gave to a pro-business group in its home state, and mine, Minnesota.
A "human rights group" tried to pressure the company to hand over at least $150,000 for its grievous sin of giving that amount to a business-favoring group. By any other name, it amounted to a variation of the old protection racket: You pay us, and you're home free.
Thanks to Target's resoluteness, the gambit failed. Meanwhile, ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros-backed MoveOn made its move on 1,700-plus Target stores in 49 states. Boycott is the name of its its game. To date the MoveOn effort falls flat, even supported by patently false advertising. Same-store Target sales are up for the same month. There is simply no stopping the back-to-school shopper crowds. Target earnings, even in an economic slump, continue strong for this second largest retailer in the nation. (Is Walmart, one wonders, next for a boycott? Sears?)
(Editors' note: As prequel to this subject, see Larson's article, "Boycotting Target: Ideological Thuggery at Work," posted here on Aug. 16.)
MoveOn's TV spot appropriates Target's trademarked red bullseye logo and depicts a stick man loading an American flag, of all things, into a shopping cart. A doomsday voice-over says, "…Target and other companies are .trying to buy elections."
Not true. Not even close! Closer to reality, if that matters to anyone at MoveOn, are efforts, say, of trade and teachers' unions, spending millions upon millions to influence politics their way. But then, the ardent Left never did let truth interfere with its vile attacks. Liberal lies will do, just as any port in a storm. Who's really "buying elections?"
Foul motives in the TV spot are sniffed out by MSNBC. It bans the dirty spots from its network air. Says MSNBC: "…the ad "does not comply with our advertising policy, as it is a direct attack on an individual business." No other network, with palms up for ad dollars, forsakes the ill-premised TV spot. That tells reams.
Ludicrously, certainly with malice aforethought, MoveOn's campaign erects a straw man. It sets it ablaze because of Target's one-time contribution — plus local companies' Best Buy's, Polaris Industries' and other Minnesota-based corporations– to a local pro-business group, a consortium called Minnesota Forward.
It received $150,000 from Target to support a better business climate, job creation and lower corporate taxes in Minnesota. The state suffers from a sky-high corporate income tax rate, fully 9.8 percent at the top, in contrast to a national average of 6.6 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. That gives Minnesota the third highest rate in the nation. (Individual Minnesota taxpayers are tagged per capita with the fifth-heaviest tax load in the United States. Like its cold weather reputation, Minnesota's high tax climate is chilling.)
State Representative Tom Emmer, a pro-life "R" running for governor, is anti-gay marriage. In this he quite agrees with the president of these United States, Barak Obama, and the governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty and, indeed, most of the people of this nation. His campaign receives a boost from Minnesota Forward in the form of issue-oriented TV advertising. Nothing out of the ordinary. No slaps at the other candidates. Just a promotion of Emmer's based on his lower tax aimng strategy.
So what's the fuss? Well, for intensely partisan MoveOn and its bullying "gay rights" buddies, Emmer's stance on gay marriage – recall, please, one shared by most Americans — makes him a candidate sprouting tail and horns. So much for presumptuousness.
Ironically, "gay rights" advocates would deny others free speech rights. They paint conservative candidate, conservative lawyer Emmer (who is not only against higher taxes, but also more restrictive gun controls) as a homophobic, cartoon-like character. Truth is not the aim; the campaign is solely to deride and destruct.
They fling at Emmer all sorts of weird epithets, inviting slander and libel. These include the term "homophobic" which, like "racist," is tossed capriciously, irresponsibly nowadays, by the crafty, take-no-prisoners Left, out to silence, not to enlighten. Being a public figure, Emmer has little to no defense against such perverse personal attacks under the well-established case law in New York Times v. Sullivan although malice in this case is a given.
Target officials say they support Emmer's record on state economic issues, and because he appears to be the strongest pro-business candidate in the governor's race. His social agenda, if it be that, is not a factor. Of Minnesota's three gubernatorial candidates, he alone supports cutting spending, not reflexively hiking taxes.
Minnesota Forward spokesman Brian McClung says his group would support candidates from either side of the aisle, or independents, based on their positions on state business issues. It stands to reason that that person would be a would-be tax-averse, pro job-creating conservative Republican.
Target did not knuckle under to the attempt to extract money from its corporate coffers under the threat of a boycott. Hooray! In another context, what "gay rights" activists did in Minnesota would be, yes, criminal. "Protection rackets" might fall under the public's radar screens, and certainly those of liberal news media, as in this case. But that does not make the outrageous demands to muzzle a company, or to extract money from it by a shakedown, any less morally repugnant.
Faced with a boycott that does not seem to be taking root, fizzling in fact, the ethical Minnesota-based retailer has endured a shot across its bow designed, likely, to silence other corporations' giving to pro-business candidates of any stripe. Conduct that stirs the gender pot shamelessly, recklessly, could be self-destructive to "gay rights" crowd once the public catches on to its mean and nasty scheme. Do such intolerant mud-flingers who seek to silence others, have no shame, none at all? Free speech for them, but for no one else? What kind of moral tyranny is that?
Someone should start a BUY-COTT … I am going to go shopping at Target today.
The author ends his essay with a question; “Do such intolerant mud-flingers who seek to silence others, have no shame, none at all? Free speech for them, but for no one else?” Of course; I’m well enough aware of Gary Larson to know when a question is rhetorical.
This is exactly the belief of the intolerant secular/progressive left. Speech is free to all; as long as ‘all’ agrees with the progressive position.
Just as the president decried the January 2010 SCOTUS decision allowing corporations to spend as freely as they like in support or opposition to candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns. The progressive left absolutely despised this ruling http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/6854554/
Basically their position was; “Where does it say that evil capitalistic corporations should be allowed exactly the same free speech opportunities to support or oppose candidates as the NEA, ACORN, The Trial Lawyers Association, the SEIU, GLESN, or the AFL/COI. Doesn’t SCOTUS know that we are on the side of the people? How dare they decide to grant free speech rights to our political opponents!”
This is exactly the same scheme the unnamed “gay rights” and “human rights groups” tried to play on Target. “If you think you’re not going to pay a price for (Gasp!) promoting capitalism in this country; boy have you got another think coming. We’re going to paint you as evil, and homophobic to boot. Let’s see how you like that Target!”
Target’s response; a great big yawn. How out of touch can these progressive groups possibly be? Calling for a national boycott of Target during back-to-school week is like boycotting Toys R Us during the holidays; stupid! Of course, no one ever accused these guys of actually possessing any intellect.
This speaks directly to my theory that secular/progressivism has achieved religious status among many on the left. They don’t even bother to debate anymore. They decree and expect the great unwashed to dutifully follow their demands.
This article disappoints. First, you completely ignore that the right-wing is chock-full-o’ consumer boycotts, such as the American Family Association’s current boycott of Home Deport for being too pro-gay. Everything you say about the Target boycott could be said of the Home Depot boycott.
Second, putting “gay rights” in scare quotes is absurd. It suggests that the concept of rights for gays is so facetious that is needs to be ridiculed by putting it in quotes, as if to call them “so-called rights.”
Third, even though only a sliver of the country’s gays are boycotting Target, it’s not just because he’s against gay marriage. Tom Emmer has a very unique background of having opposed basic gay rights at every turn for many years. He also associated with a Christian Rock band that advocated the execution of gays and when called to account for that, he said he supported them because they are “nice people.” There is a lot more about Tom Emmer that is driving the anger than simply being against gay marriage.
Fourth, you can bet your patootie that if Target gave money to a candidate that is on the extreme spectrum of the abortion debate (such as, unfettered abortion on demand), there would be many boycotts from groups on the Right, despite Target’s stance that it gave for business-related policy reasons.
mattmatt,
“…you can bet your patootie that if Target gave money to a candidate that is on the extreme spectrum of the abortion debate (such as, unfettered abortion on demand), there would be many boycotts from groups on the Right…” and they would probably be just as ineffectual. Such announcements, while they may make the ‘demanding’ group feel powerful, don’t’ usually have the intended outcome.
I would venture so far as to say that most of these progressive ‘special victim’s’ groups are getting either a little lazy or are suffering from an over-inflated ego regarding their influence. Alinsky style 60’s activism dictates not only an announced boycott but pickets and a little civil disobedience as well; and the larger and more continuous the better. Apparently; these new political activists need a refresher course as they seem not nearly ‘in-your-face’ enough to be taken seriously.
Bill Wavering – I agree with you that these boycotts are generally ineffectual(it would take a real egregious act to organize people to stick with it). The one against Target is particularly challenged by the fact that Target has traditionally distinguished itself among companies as a pro-gay equality company. So even among the groups that the boycotters are trying to rile up, there’s a dissenting crowd who think Target is a good company that just made an intended gaff. I think more sophisticated groups like the Human Rights Campaign (the big gay rights organization) were deliberate in not joining the boycott because one looks foolish when they put their name behind something that fails. Plus, our economy is too intertwined to think you can boycott people/things you dislike without also hurting people/things you like very much — and people are smart enough to see that (take the BP boycott for example, which people understood would have hurt innocent station operators). Still, when all is said and done, if an individual citizen really is offended by how a company uses its profits, I think it’s reasonable for that guy to say, “hey, i’ll just shop somewhere else.” As for Target, I think they could’ve avoided this kerfuffle with a more sophisticated PR response.
mattmatt,
I think Target did exactly the right thing. They shut up and sold product. They knew they could not win such a discussion, because you never can. So they decided to just keep their collective mouths shut and concentrate on what they do best, sell goods to willing customers.
“Target has traditionally distinguished itself among companies as a pro-gay equality company.” This is exactly why I find this announcement of a boycott to be suspicious. It almost sounds like a ‘shake down’ just as the author implies.
It’s almost as if somebody came to the conclusion that since Target has come out with ‘pro-gay’ policy positions in the past, that an accusation of perceived support for a ‘homophobic’ candidate would ‘force’ Target into a donation in kind in order not to be looked upon as guilty by association.
This is tantamount to the Rev. Walter Fauntroy’s statement that; “We are going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism, and the scourge of poverty, that the Ku Klux — I mean to say the Tea Party,” Fauntroy said to laughter. “You all have to forgive me, but I — you have to use them interchangeably.” http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2010/08/27/former-dem-congressman-kkk-tea-party-interchangeable/
My personal opinion is that the accusations of “racist”, “bigot”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, and a host of other pejoratives have lost their ability to shock and/or shame because they are so over-used. Progressives use these terms as a substitution for substantive debate of any issue. If you don’t like the Obama Administration’s policies it’s only because you’re a racist. No a person can actually believe differently. In California if you favor Proposition 8 you’re homophobic: And T.E.A. Partiers who believe in limited government and balanced budgets are bigots.
It’s enough to make one wonder what happened to the progressive belief in 2003 when Hillary Clinton said; “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” http://www.forumeter.com/video/187266/I-Am-Sick-And-Tired-Hillary-Clinton
Apparently; that all changed after the 2008 elections. Now when the administration says “*%&$ you people; we won!” We’re all just supposed to lay back, close our eyes, and try to enjoy the ravishing we’re receiving. And that goes double for the NAACP or GLSEN or ACORN or any other progressive group that decides to point a spotlight at you. “You are a bigot! Your penance is a $150,000 donation to our cause. Pay up, then go and sin no more.
Bill Wavering – I don’t believe it was a “shakedown.” My take on the situation is that, for whatever reason, Target had earned a reputation as a progressive, pro-gay equality company, a corporate friend to the gay community that gave rise to real consumer loyalty in that segment. Because of that, the reports of this contribution triggered a feeling of betrayal in a way that news of a similar contribution by Wal-Mart would not have. But, a boycott, like a Tea Party, is a collection of individuals, many of whom come at the same thing for totally different reasons, so it’s hard to say. But my belief is that much of the reaction had to do with a sense of betrayal because of Target’s many efforts to support gays — not some grand scheme to shakedown Target for an inconsequential amount of money.
Since you raise Prop 8 and conservatism generally, I would also like to note that I think it’s a disgrace that some people believe it is “conservative” to expand the government into people’s bedrooms. In old school conservativism, the idea was to keep the government small and not unnecessarily enlarge the government to make it an arm of the church to enforce private morals. It was also once conservative to keep the federal government out of states’ business. Now, radical right-wingers have overrun the party, and think it’s somehow conservative to create a federal amendment to define marriage, when that’s a quintessential state power. And even within states, it’s now somehow seen as conservative to abandon a live-and-let-live, small government attitude and to amend state constitutions to inject private moral opinions of some into state law and thereby restrict the liberties of private citizens. To me, it is a scandal to charge gay citizens full-price taxes but give them cut-rate benefits, just because some other citizens morally dissent from gays’ lives. The “conservative” attitude on gay issues has made so many would-be conservative gays into liberaals simply to fight for their equal share of the public pie that they fund with their hard work and taxes.
How can the right be now synonymous with bigot. Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility… now anyone right of center is a nazi. How did this happen to us?
mattmatt,
“I don’t believe it was a “shakedown.” Then why does the author of the piece say; “A “human rights group” tried to pressure the company to hand over at least $150,000 for its grievous sin of giving that amount to a business-favoring group”?
“…I would also like to note that I think it’s a disgrace that some people believe it is “conservative” to expand the government into people’s bedrooms.” This is an inaccurate statement. Proposition 8 was about same sex marriage; it had nothing to do with co-habitation or anything regarding about who you chose to sleep with. It was all about granting special privilege to a small (probably @ 7%) of the population. See, marriage is not a ‘right’, it is a privilege granted by the state.
The difference between a ‘right’ and a privilege is that a right is a privilege coupled directly to a responsibility. Free travel throughout the country is a right. But that privilege of travel is subject to certain responsibilities. Driving a car is subject to the responsibilities of carrying liability insurance and obeying traffic laws. Ignore these responsibilities and, once you collect enough points, your license will be restricted or revoked. Fly wherever you want. End up on ‘watch list due to nefarious activity or associations and see how easy it is to fly once you make the ‘watch’ list. So; the privilege of flying is subject to the responsibility of being careful of what you say and who you associate with.
Any heterosexual couple can get married. There’s no training program (although maybe there should be) waiting period, no other qualifying factors. There’s also no criminal penalty for screwing up a marriage. There may be civil penalties like child support or a division of assets, but there’s no fines or jail time imposed on the offending party in the marriage.
Free travel is a right, marriage is a privilege: And privileges may be restricted as society requires. This is the true nub of the debate. In 2000 California passes Proposition 22 by 61%. In 2008 Proposition 8 passed by 52.47%. So in eight years the percentage of persons in California favoring same sex marriage increased by over 8%. This says that gay activists are making successful inroads by almost a percentage point per year; so 2012 should be your year. What’s to fight about? Persons who favor or oppose ballot initiatives win or lose each cycle. Work within the system. Having judges make decrees that overturn the will of the people just creates animosity and encourages argument instead of debate.
As for marriage in and of itself. I personally don’t’ think the government should be in the marriage business at all. As I said it’s not a right. If a couple wants a church sanctioned marriage, that’s one thing, but the only thing the state should be able to grant, either to hetero or homo sexual couples, is a civil union.
Response to KML
Remember, this has nothing to do with the debate. If you believe that you should be able to keep the wealth you have honestly earned, and that others do not have the privilege of access to your wealth just because they have a sob story then according to the progressive lexicon you are a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing Neanderthal; and it is the duty of this administration to bodily drag your worthless carcass into the 21st century.
Fiscal responsibility is a funny thing. Conventional wisdom says that Clinton had surpluses and Bush had deficits. You can only believe this if you were publically schooled. All spending originates in the House of Representatives; it’s in the Constitution. Clinton had a republican led congress that cut spending; that’s why he had surpluses. Bush had a democratically led congress for almost 12 his term, hence deficits since everyone knows a democrat cannot resist the temptation to spend other people’s money.
As for anything being right of center being labeled as Nazi, It’s a variation of the same thing. The progressive agenda is so extreme, the only way they can even attempt to claim ‘normalcy’ is to claim that every political ideology other than progressivism to be ‘extreme’. In short; we’ve allowed them to define the terms of the debate. What you do is refuse to accept their definitions.
Progressivism is just about the most gutless choices person can make, because it deliberately eschews thought. Its only requirement is that you ‘feel’. For example; a progressive will say; “I feel that all women should have an unfettered right to an abortion at government expense.”
So your response is; “How often do you spend a day in the lobby of Planned Parenthood offering to personally pay for abortions for women that have no money?”
They respond; “I said I think the government should pay.”
“The government doesn’t have any money. That money the government collects is my money. I’m philosophically opposed to abortion. You should have the courage of your convictions and pay for these abortions out of your own pocket if you feel so strongly about it.”
That progressive will come absolutely unglued; but keep pressing the point. If that’s how they believe, let them finance the program. I don’t’ care if it is living wages, choice, gay marriage, Afghanistan, it doesn’t matter. Force them to own their position; then force them to personally sacrifice for that position and you’ll never lose a debate. Always force a progressive to demonstrate the courage of their convictions and you cannot lose: Because the have no courage and they don’t’ have convictions either. Hope this helps as it’s the best I have; but it’s worked successfully for me for over two generations.
Bill Wavering – You are incorrect. According to the U.S Supreme Court, marriage is not just a right, but a “fundamental right” guaranteed to US citizens under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (and the Fourteenth Amedment) of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the “right to travel” is another of the few rights deemed a “fundamental right” by the U.S. Supreme Court, so it’s unintentially apt that you compare the two. Even if marriage were a “privilege,” it is impermissible for the civil government to attach conditions on government benefits that unconstitutionally discriminate among citizens. Thus, even though the legilatures and citizenry of many states once enacted bans on multiracial marriage, those bans were struck down as null and void as unconstitional under the Equal Protection Clause. Soo, too, with gay marriage. It infuriates me to hear you say that gays marriage is a “special privilege,” as if gays are looking to get some just-for-gays goody from the government. The ability of interracial couples was not a special privilege, and the ability of gays to get married is not a special privilege. It is the same privilege granted to straight U.S. citizens. When a gay couple can’t get married in, say, Oklahoma, they don’t have access to the same benefits from their tax-funded civil government that straight (intestacy laws, hospital visitation, social security benefits, ability for foreign spouse to become US citizen and not be deported). And when a Massachusetts gay married couple leaves the state, they are legal strangers to each other in other states, which impedes their right to travel. The government cannot treats citizens unequally because of *moral* beliefs, even if 54% of people share that moral belief. The “special rights” mantra is not only false — name one “special” right gays get that straights wouldn’t get — but it revulses me so much that I, who would otherwise be a Republican, vote for Democrats whose spending and big government policies disappoint me. The writing is already on the wall for opposition to gay marriage — but this notion that gay marriage is a “special privilege” borders on offensive. Oddly enough, the same crowd that crows about gays being supposedly promiscuous does their damndest to make sure they can’t enter a lifelong, monogamous relationship. (And, as an aside, it was Republicans who fought the overturning of sodomy laws until the Supreme Court struck them all down in 2003 — that was a big failure of “conservatives,” to be advocating the policiing of bedrooms.) Face it, this comes down to so-called conservatives wanting the U.S. government to impose their private moral beliefs on other citizens and to run the government in a fashion to favor those who share those moral beliefs and disfavor those who do not. That is unconstitutional. I can provide citations to Supreme Court cases if need be.
Sorry for jumping in.
“According to the U.S Supreme Court, marriage is not just a right, but a ‘fundamental right.’” I’m sure that when the Supreme Court is agreeing with you their rulings must be inviolate, hm?
If marriage is a right, then peoples’ rights are being violated all the time. My creepy neighbor down the street has his eye on a 12 year old girl at the bus stop. He will be happy to know he has a right to marriage. I think that I should be able to marry another woman besides my wife. My new rights guarantee me this, correct?
And what about sisters and brothers? Their rights are being denied. Oh, and our local paper had an article about a Korean lady traveling the country and getting married every place she stops. Including marrying a steer in North Dakota. Poor lady. Her loving, committed relationships are being disparaged.
Mountain Man – Whether you or I like a ruling or not, the Supreme Court is the final word on what a “right” is under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This has been well established since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. However, that marriage is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause is not even controversial. It has been acknowledged by both conservative and liberal Justices and has been affirmed time and time again. If you cannot accept that, you are free to get behind a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution. And if you don’t respect the ruling, you have larger objections to our constitutional democracy. You’re out of line to suggest sarcastically that I find some Supreme Court rulings “inviolate” and others not.
It appears from your post that you may be unaware that just because a right is a “fundamental right” does not mean that it cannot be interfered with by the government. Even fundamental rights can be restricted if the government has a “compelling interest” the restriction is “narrowly tailored” to advance that interest. Thus, laws prohibiting the marriage of blood relatives have been upheld because the government has a compelling interest in preventing genetic health problems. Laws prohibiting marriage to children have been upheld because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children, who are deemed vulnerable and insufficiently mature and to protect them from manipulative adults. So, although you mock what you call a “new right,” you are actually just dabbling haplessly with a very old right that has been affirmed time and time again. Unlike the marriage restrictions on consanguinity (blood relatives) and minors, restrictions based on race have been held not to advance a compelling government interest — it does not advance a compelling government interest to people of the same race out of marriages. And the government does not have a compelling interest, in my view, of enforcing the morals of people like you, who so easily and offensively compare gays marriage to a creep ogling a girl and a woman marrying an animal. With inflammatory comparisons like that, it’s no wonder the so-called “conservative” side has lost the hearts and MINDS of an ever-growing number of people.
It appears that you are unaware of the meaning of basic terms. A “fundamental” right is a right intrinsic to existence (among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). A legal right is a privilege created by law, like marriage, drivers licenses, fire permits. These rights exist at the pleasure of those who pass laws,and can be amended or rescinded at will.
A “constitutional right” does not exist. The constitution does not grant rights, it only ennumerates a few of our rights in the context of limiting government (see amendment IX).
So, marriage is a privilege created, limited, and defined by law. It is an institution that has been usurped from the church. Despite the god-like status you assign to the court, there is no fundamental right to marry.
The rest of your screed is emotional pap. You moralize to me about “ogling creeps” while simultaneously impugning my morality. Why, exactly, is your morality more worthy than mine?
As far as compelling interest, that is a high bar. Government has little compelling interest in any personal interaction. It has no business defining marriage, it has no business determining who makes too much money, it has no business knowing how many toilets are in my house.
It is you, sir, who wants to bring the weight of government to bear on private relationships by insisting that government approve, condone, and give favorable treatment to the kind of sex a person engages in.
Mountain Man – The only thing we see eye to eye on is that the government should not be in the marriage business. But since the government has chosen to issue marriage licenses, my contention is that it must do so neutrally, without advantaging or disadvantaging classes of citizens (whether based on race, sexual orientation, etc.).
When I use the term “fundamental right,” I use it as it is used and understood in constitutional law (a topic that I teach at a law school). As a factual matter, it’s beyond dispute that the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail ruled that “marriage” is a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution, and that the Court has affirmed that ruling repeatedly since then. It sounds like you have a more fundamental dispute with the Supreme Court on that point. You cite your personal definitions of fundamental right and quote the Declaration of Independence, but as I note, I’m talking about constitutional rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is delegated that interpretive power under our system of separation of powers.
Last, I do not seek the government to give “favorable treatment to the kind of sex a person engages in.” Marriage and sex are not the same thing, and no heterosexual wedding I’ve ever been to involved a sex blessing. Civil marriage carries with it a variety of benefits. My belief is that if the government elects to issue civil marriage licenses and to confer benefits to all those holding that license, it must do so neutrally, without regard to the sexual orientations of the couple. This has nothing to do with sex.
It has everything to do with sex. “Gay” is a sexual term. There is no one fighting to obtain marriage privileges for non-sexual relationships. There is no one insisting we accept their love and commitment to each other apart from the sexual context.
You yourself tacitly admitted this: “Thus, laws prohibiting the marriage of blood relatives have been upheld because the government has a compelling interest in preventing genetic health problems. Laws prohibiting marriage to children have been upheld because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children, who are deemed vulnerable and insufficiently mature and to protect them from manipulative adults… Unlike the marriage restrictions on consanguinity (blood relatives) and minors…” All these criteria are sexual ones.
Gay marriage is about one thing, and one thing only: forcing society to accept, even celebrate, certain forms of sexual behavior.
mattmatt,
Please provide the SCOTUS court case reference that defines marriage as a ‘fundamental right’ as I am unfamiliar with it. Any finding of a court in a specific case would seem to be defined as a ‘legal right’ which is a decidedly different animal. I find it difficult to believe that SCOTUS has discovered a ‘fundamental’ right to marriage when they cannot discover a ‘fundamental’ right to vote in a national election. If marriage has been defined as a ‘fundamental’ right by SCOTUS then it should not be possible to attach any restrictions to marriage by ANY state authority. That several states impose a plethora of regulations on marriage from age requirements to genetic relationships, to gender would seem to say that marriage is not a ‘fundamental’ right. It would also seem that if marriage HAD been declared a ‘fundamental’ right that that declaration alone would be all that would be required to literally defeat ANY restriction that ANY state would attempt to impose on marriage. Just as a personal aside; this wasn’t one of these ‘loony tunes’ decisions out of the Burger Court, was it? You know that that Thurgood Marshall character don’t you? What a kidder!
However if such case law does exist, it would be another judicial over-reach like Roe v. Wade to me. As I said, I don’t think the state has any business being in the marriage business. It was a religious ceremony long before the state got involved and I believe that is where it should begin and end.
Civil unions provide all the legal protections either a same sex or mixed sex couple could want benefits coverage, visitation rights, rights of inheritance, adoption, etcetera. I also have a problem with gay marriage being defined as a civil rights issue. The problem stems from the fact that it is no way equal to the struggle of African Americans. I’ve yet to observe a person deliberately altering his race, but I’ve personally observed persons deliberately altering their choice of sex partners; in both directions I might add.
Add to this the evidence that suggests that vanishingly small percentage of gay relationships are truly monogamous. http://www.exacom.net/firstlibrary/Polls%20and%20Stats/Homosexuality/Gay%20unions%20brief.htm
I’ve not raised this subject to personally offend anyone, I just happen to believe that it does border on privilege. In my opinion, gays desire what society cannot provide. As a practicing Catholic, I am told by my faith to eschew such relationships. This is not to say that I must condemn others as I cannot. I have enough trouble with my own salvation to be overly concerned regarding another’s. But this is what I believe that gays truly seek. As any person reasonable would; they have a real problem with anyone else telling them that something that feels so correct is not. In speaking frankly with several of my gay friends, once the bourbon takes hold; the major reason for this is normalcy, acceptance; in other words absolution. Unfortunately, that is something I may not grant. Final judgment is reserved to one Person only; and that judgment happens upon death. All 6 billion people on this planet could agree that a gay relationship is as highly sought after and as blessed a union as any other and it won’t matter a wit during that final judgment. I cannot know the mind of God, neither can you. The bible gives, at best, a fuzzy picture of the mind of the Creator. He may condone such relationships. He may not. All I’m certain of is that I may not condemn, I may not absolve, and I have enough on my plate securing my own salvation. All I can be certain of is this; once you’re standing there in front of the Savior, it’s probably going to be too late to alter one’s perspective at that time.
I have not ever, nor would I, proselytize to anyone regarding personal choice. My faith also demands a respect for all life from conception to natural death therefore I do not believe in abortion. I cannot stop another person from exercising that right, but I can demand that my government not use my tax dollars to support such a choice. That’s why Roe v. Wade was bad law. It should have been a ‘states’ rights issue. Some states would have been severely restrictive and some extremely liberal. People could have voted with their feet and moved to the state most accommodating to their position. For instance I could well see states like California not only approving of abortion, but publically funding those procedures as well. I could also see states such as North and South Dakota ridding themselves of the last abortion clinic in each state (each only has one ya’ know) and stopping the procedure altogether.
I see the same answer here as well. Want a lifetime monogamous gay relationship; Massachusetts is for you. Don’t want to see that stuff; move to Utah.
Mountain Man – We simply disagree. Marriage is far more meaningful than a brute celebration of sex acts. It astonishes me that anyone could perceive marriage to be as base as that. No, straight marriages are not that shallow, and neither are gay ones. When a gay couple marries, no one is “forced” to “accept” or “celebrate” anything — just as the ability of mixed-race couples to marry does not force anti-mixed couple people to “accept” or “celebrate” anything.
Moutain Man – Further follow-up to your last post where you said that gay marriage is about approving gay sex acts. As the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 567: “It would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
Bill Wavering – There are many SCOTUS cases that hold that marriage is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause. Perhaps the most-cited case on that is Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), an 8-1 decision, which struck down a law that had prohibited persons with unpaid child support obligations from marrying without court permission. That case has a pretty clear discussion of the fundametal right to marry. Loving v. Virginia and its precedessors also discuss marriage as a fundamenatal right. In many cases after Zablocki, the “right to marry” is listed as one of the handful of rights recognized as “fundamental rights” under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987) (“The decision to marry is a fundamental right”). You made the point that if marriage were a “fundamental right,” then all the current marriage restrictions (blood, age, etc.) would be void. That is not so. The government can restrict even a fundmental right if the restriction to “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling government interest.” Age and genetic/blood restrictions pass that test (as I said in another post), whereas restrictions based on race do not. The Supreme Court has not addressed whether restrictions based on the sexual orientation pass that test — I think same-sex bans do not pass that test, but it’s an issue that jurists disagree on.
The link you provided me on the “vanishingly small number of monogamous gay relationships” did not work, but I can tell you I’ve seen some very, very specious “research” in this area. Much of the “research” is manipulated or outright faked to serve the agenda of the person using it. My anecdotal experience is that my gay friends’ and straight friends’ sexual activities are about equal — although the males seek more sex than the females (no shock).
I agree with you on not proselytizing and to live and let live. If there’s a God that metes out judgment, either the gays, or the “Christians” that treat them so poorly — or both — might be on the receiving end of some harsh judgment. In my humble view, the graver sin is the way people treat gays.
“Marriage is far more meaningful than a brute celebration of sex acts.” Who claimed that? I said that it was gays who wish to force their brand of sex into “marriage.” You did not offer a rebuttal, simply a denial.
Again I ask, what non-sexual couples (or trios, or whatever) are clamouring for recognition in marriage?
Nor did I claim that marriage is the “right to have sexual intercourse.” Indeed, no one has the right to enegage in personal behavior. It is not a matter of rights, it is a matter of choice.
Maybe you might take the time to look up a definition. The word is “consummate.” Then, explain to me how a marriage is consummated in a gay relationship.
Mountain Man – Gay married couples probably have sex, go on vacations, breathe, shop together, hold hands, celebrate birthdays, go to family funerals together, any number of things that accompany marriage. Why are you so obsessed with gay sex? Are you so disgusted by gay people that you think they can be summarized by the word sex? There are celibate gay people, too, for crying out loud. When gay people get married, those who are invted are there to celebrate their union as a couple and their lives together. If you can’t see that and can only focus on sex sex sex sex sex, then good luck to you. And peace. Signing off.
Parting shot? Coward.
Not a parting shot, Mountain Man, but I don’t see the point of further argument. You’ve made your points, I’ve made mine. I will never agree with you that the gay married people I know are seeking nothing more than societal approval of their sex acts. In fact, knowing the depth of their relationship, that notion offends me.
You accused me of being obsessed with sex. That is not a point to be made, that is an ad hominem.
I made no assertion that the gay married people “you know” are doing anything in particular. My comments are political, regarding the generic gay rights movement.
The political movement to advance the gay agenda intends to change culture and force people to agree with them. Many of these same people object to, say, Christians implementing a “theocracy,” yet have no problem at all in implementing their cultural vision, coercively if necessary.
Look at your own words. Of course people of all orientations can have deep relationships. I did not dispute that. But those who are secure in their relationships and identity do not demand of others to conform to their world view.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that inviting government to solemnize alternate relationships is antithetical to limited government and violates the premise of a cultural institution, that is, marriage.
mattmatt,
First regarding the link. I just clicked on it again and was taken to the study. The summary is as follows;
“A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”
The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.
Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows. Same-sex “marriage” has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual “marriages.”
The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships. Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.
In “The Male Couple,” published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity. “Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” the authors said. “Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.”
http://www.exacom.net/firstlibrary/Polls%20and%20Stats/Homosexuality/Gay%20unions%20brief.htm
Regarding your ‘compelling government interest’ statement: I cannot imagine what compelling interest government could have on this issue. My personal opinion regarding why the government originally got into the marriage license business was the money.
Bill Wavering – It looks like the study is comparing gay “relationship” length to straight “marriage” length. That’s apples to oranges, because “relationship” sweeps in 21-year-old flings whereas marriages count relationships deemed stable enough to formalize. I’m not aware of any reliable studies comparing gay divorce rate to straight divorce rate, but the majority of gay couples that married in Massachusetts 6 years ago are still married, so at a minimum gay Massachusetts married couples do not support that statistic. I also believe the existence of a “marriage” keeps some couples together who might otherwise give up if they had no formal bind, so that gets somewhat circular.
On the compelling interest thing. I agree with you. Legal opponents of gay marriage say that, although there is a fundamental right to “marriage,” gays can’t claim that fundamental right because marriage, definitionally, is a union of a man and a woman. That gets circular, but it’s the argument. If the fundamental right to marriage does not apply to gay marriage, then gay marriage proponents are left to arguments under the Equal Protection Clause, which requires that government have a defensible basis for distinguishing between classes of citizens. Although the standard varies, most judges have ruled that the lowest standard applis — that the government can disguishes betweeen staights and gays if the distinction is “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.”
[...] Read More: By Gary Larson, Intellectual Conservative [...]