Bruce: Interesting question. I know that a few years back, Target did contribute to the campaign of Minnesota's GOP candidate for governor, who was opposed to legalizing gay marriage, and faced quite a backlash for it. If anyone knows of a Minnesota company 'coming out' (sorry about the pun) in favor of the marriage amendment, we'd love to hear about it.

Agree, Until Corporations are given the right to vote, they should not be given the right to free speech. Their donations to candidates should be pooled into a generic fund to shared by any and all candidates.

Citizens United SCOTUS decision said that "Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, and determined that allowing congressional control of speech by corporations is inseparable from allowing congressional control of the individuals who own and run the corporation. It's not a bad read. ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf )

The "personhood" proposal falls apart when you consider exactly what the amendment might say. I have yet to see actual proposed text that makes any sense.

Exactly how I feel.

kneeo - I agree 100%

I agree with you, Julie. Especially the second half of your comment, which gets to the meat of why I too voted "no."

Julie if you do not agree with a stand a corporation you have invested in is taking then you are free to sell your stocks. Would you not prefer they be up front with where they spend investment monies? Take a PUBLIC stand, I do not like it I walk. Hide behind corporate doors and fund policy and organizations I am against, not let me know publicly then I am not able to effectively protest the stand. Corporations no longer "stick to business" they use stock payer dollars, and profits to influence policy. I want to know exactly where they stand so I can support or boycott the stand.

Exactly. I'd prefer that the state get entirely out of sanctioning marriage than to add other types of unions under a "marriage umbrella." Marriage has a time-honored definition...no one is saying that couples other than man/woman can't have a union, a ceremony, and legal ties just as strong as what are outlined in traditional marriage.

nice point on the license remark.

Excellent point....

I like what you have to say, but since we have to get a permit to purchase a handgun, is owning a handgun a right, or a privilege?

Susan, there is no requirement in MN or WI to purchase or own a handgun. the right to own firearms is a right defined in the US Consittution.

Carbon, I believe (my apologies if I am wrong) you have to get a permit to own a handgun in Minnesota: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/firearms-permit-to-purchase-transfer.aspx

Because I aslso believe in equal rights for all law abiding citizens, I was only questioning MNParent78's logic in saying that " If it were a right, you wouldn't need a license for permission to do it." By this logic, if owning a handgun is a right, you wouldn't need a permit to own it.

Susan, I stand corrected. I know this is not in place for rifles, etc.

Carbon Bigfuut
12:33 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Susan, there is no requirement in MN or WI to purchase or own a handgun. the right to own firearms is a right defined in the US Consittution.
There certainly are requirements to purchase a gun and lets be happy that there are. Even if you pass all the requirements and choose to own a gun, this so called right can be stripped of you for numerous reasons. Can you say felony or mental health issues….those are just two examples that come to mind that would prevent or strip you of the privilege to own a gun.

Folks, there is zero requirement to have a permit to own a handgun. Either a conceal/carry license or a background check done by your local sheriff must be obtained in order to PURCHASE a handgun.

Susan, would you prefer to back to the previous laws where only some companies were allowed unlimited promotion of their chosen candidate? The Citizens United decision just leveled the playing field.

I don't think even you believe this, Carbon. If you do, I suggest you do a little research on the subject....please use bipartisan sources though.

That's actually true. Certain companies and groups had no legal limit to their support of candidates. Think newspapers, TV, radio, and unions, to name a few. Now they are all equal, as any support from one group can be countered by support from another group. What is needed is accurate reporting on all sources of where the money comes from.

As long as I'm here, my feelings on gay marraige are that the government should get out of the marraige business. "Marraige" in my mind, is a religious cermony performed by a priest or minister, within the orthodoxy of that particular church. In order to satisfy the government urge to regulate and classify couples for tax purposes, governments could issue a "civil union license" instead of the current marraige license.

I agree. I think ALL "legal" marriages should be renamed as civil unions, and churches should "marry" people. It's not going to happen though...

Susan, What are people going to say if we keep agreeing with each other. Very well said.

I would NEVER allow anyone from my companies to EVER publically support either side in the name of the company. Employees can do whatever they want but they can NOT say we employees from $#*(*$#( support or dont support gay marriage. People vote not corporations.

Orono, we agree on what "should" be done, but I am not sure we will agree on how to vote on the amendment. Since I don't believe our lawmakers will ever take the word marriage out of our legal system, I will vote no, because I believe my gay friends should be able to get the same legal and tax benefits as I will, should I choose to marry.

Being gay is not a choice, and those who rant otherwise are simply ignorant. They are ignorant of the science, ignorant of the fact that a loving gay family is the same as any other family. They are ignorant about the terrible confusion a preteen male or female may feel when they realize they are not "normal". And most importantly, they are ignorant in not realizing the hate they are passing on to their offspring.

Susan, I like your wisdom!

"Being gay is not a choice, and those who rant otherwise are simply ignorant. They are ignorant of the science...."

Believe it or not, I agree with everything you said except this: "Denying gays the right to marry will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional, because it is."

Given the current court make-up, I wouldnt bet any money on the outcome coming out in your favor. However, given the Roberts surprise, you never know.

You are actually being kind to the MN Republican party. While I attended a meeting a while back hoping to find candidates concerned about economical issues like myself, all they wanted to talk about was gay marriage. I owe my life to my church and attend every week and this clown there tells me I am "unchristian" if I dont see the importance of the issue.

Orono,

I respect you more since reading your comment about a rightwing nut telling you that you’re "unchristian" if you don’t see the importance of the gay marriage issue. PLEASE, who are they to judge and tell what your relationship is with your deity. You sound like when push came to shove you would do the right thing regardless of one’s sexual orientation and the true tenets of your religion have enlightened you. (Also, I think your more independent then you might like us to belive.....maybe even liberal.) However, religious hypocrites who use it for their own selfish agenda drives me nuts!. Unfortunately, there are SOME un-educated, emotional and financially deprived people that will and have been be exploited by religion. Don’t get me wrong, the left will do it in their way too, but I just detest it when religion is involved.

"Militant" is the very last word I'd use to describe a CEO of a giant company like General Mills or St. Jude Medical or Thompson Reuters. Those guys are even-keeled and fact-driven and quite frankly, boring. Standing up for the rights of the minority isn't militant, it's simply being a patriot. It's what real Americans do.

"Millitant" is exactly the term I would use to describe those protestors outside of Target that were mad when Target gave money to some pro-business pac. Before you start to argue, I gave money to the same pac - it was ONLY about pro business. The fact that it went to Emmer who happens to be anti gay had ZERO to do with the actual pac.

Mr. Emmer is not "anti-Gay". Not all homosexuals *want* to see state sanctioned marriage.

Marriage involves significant issues where the law touches on culture and morality. The bulk of that law is concerned with children, and what happens to them and their parents' property when the marriage ends.

Boiling this down to "pro" or "con" characterizations is simpleminded and not helpful..

Really? Not really sure how you got the idea that anything here pertains to race. How about we just get the government totally out of the marriage business altogether? Civil unions for all, and your marriage status is between you and your significant other?

We once discriminated against color until law finally triumphed stupidly - Sorry for any confusion. My wake up white people is just a sarcastic example of another form of discrimination that we all know (or most) was wrong and not fair. I just see this marriage issue as stupid as race discrimination was in the early 1900’s.

"How about we just get the government totally out of the marriage business altogether?"

Good idea, but that's not what is on the ballot question. Instead, the Republicans decided to double down on anti-gay marriage. How is that fair?

Amazing, Todd can't present a decent argument, so he makes this a racist discussion. You lose, Todd.

Carbon, shame on you! I don't believe Todd made a racist statement/argument, only a comment about another (formerly) controversial equal rights, discrimination issue. The right was all up in arms about equal rights for black people too, but now it would be pretty difficult to find a politician at the national level that would have the audacity to say that African Americans should still be in the back of the bus, or that they should not be able to legally marry someone of a different race.

Times change and we are evolving as a society. Those standing behind their religious beliefs should be able to do that, but don't try to force those beliefs on others. If there are legal and tax benefits for married people, then all people should be allowed to marry who they love.

I felt that Todd's "We once discriminated against color until..." statement was ok to make his point. His "Wake up WHITE people!" was a poor attempt to use a racist remark to draw attention to his post. I don't think Todd is racist.

Thank you for clarifying, Carbon, but Todd had already explained him remark.

I am truly turned off when either side uses the term "racist" - whether it is a racial comments/discussion, or reverse racial comment, it is insulting to the rest of us readers. Here though, I don't believe Todd did that, he was making a comparison, with a somewhat inflammatory statement to make his point.

Susan, Exactly! Thank you for clarifying my point so nicely. The wake up white people comment just epitomizes stupidity in my mind and conjures up images of supremacy groups…….which is how we will be looked backed upon regarding this marriage issue. We don’t need the law or church to tell us what’s fair. Being told you can’t see your dying partner because a legal family member doesn’t want you around is not fair! Call it what you will, but gay folks don’t have fair and equitable rights!

Carbon Bigfuut

I don’t think you can really argue that my comment was a poor attempt to draw attention. :) Also, I' am Not a racist.

I like your idea smokin' Joe! “…Civil unions for all, and your marriage status is between you and your significant other”. This sounds like a commonsense approach, but there's no money in it and the lawmakers love to argue and pontificate, so I don’t think it can happen, but you have my vote.

Wake up white people?
Everyone votes on what they think or feel. Put a wrestler on the ballot and watch how many people vote for him because they think its cool.

Orono,
Thanks. While I would suspect the majority of political votes (presidential, senate, Gov, etc,) are based on “feelings” (sad, but true), I don’t believe that The Supreme Court or a criminal court for that matter is voting based on “feelings”. At least they are not supposed to and if they did that would be illegal. Instead, they are using logic and interpreting the law, not their personal belief system. So, that’s what I mean when I say it’s irrelevant what you and I think and feel when voting on a legal matter. We can go back and forth about this but ultimately the gay marriage issue will go to the Supreme Court and you and I won’t be voting on it and even if we were, we still could bring our bisasis to the table.
Your example proves undoubtedly that people vote politically based on feelings. Jesse sure did “…shock the world”. I still remember that speech and being completely shell shocked that I had to wake my wife up in the wee hours of the morning to tell her. Not only was I shocked, but I learned that night you can’t take polls at face value; Just like many have done with this article/poll ( according to the pollsters, there wasn’t a chance in hell that Jesse could win). And according to this poll, many don’t think it’s a social issue, but a legal issue.

It's a dry read, but I encourage everyone to read these important SCOTUS opinions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The justices are very human, and do indeed bring their opinions to their work. The traditional ideal of a judge, suggested in the oath they take, is that they would dispense "impartial" justice, but I believe that agendas have trumped the plain meaning of the law in many cases. Like it or not, the courts are subject to popular pressure and politically appointed. They are political appointees in black robes.

The opinions are real eye-openers, if you read both the opinions, and all the dissent sections. The prejudices and agendas of the justices are usually put on full display.

If you care about these issues, you should not rely on others to read these central documents for you.

Fear doesn't enter the equation in business decisions. They are driven primarily (but not exclusively) by impact to their profits. If they say that being anti-gay marriage is bad for business then they have the data to prove it. They are now saying that driving gay couples from our state will have a negative impact on their profits. The head of Carlson Companies said the same thing. Either they live in some bizarre irrational echo chamber or they all do analysis that comes up with the same result. Since business runs on logical decision making I believe it is the latter.

Ask the businesses in Stillwater what happened to their profits when gays (and those sympathetic to them) stopped visiting Stillwater during the Bachmann boycott of that town.

Hint: They lost business.

The idea that holding certain opinions, and acting on them should be illegal is a direct threat to freedom of conscience. If the state should sanction homosexual unions, the next logical step is to turn disapproval of homosexuality into a criminal matter, much as we have done with race discrimination.

"gay people's civil rights" "Gay americans"
Why the desire to segregate yourself? When picking gender on a survey should we now add "gay male" or "straight male" as choices? When choosing race should we include gay american as a choice? When you turn this into only about you, I lose any interest in supporting you. Remember, you need those of us that are straight to vote for all of you.

Orono, I don't believe it is "only" about them. They have been excluded, they now want to be included, that's all.

I beleive you are officially considered a "hater"

I’m not sure what your position is Trish, but I do agree that we have the right to disagree and voice our opinions. Indiviuals and businesses. Thankfully when we can’t work out our disagreements we have a legal system to help us based on our laws. Ultimately this “social issue” will become a discrimination issue and be heard by the supreme court.

Trish, disagreeing is not the issue, it's the labels...immoral, pervert, disgusting, and and the complete ignorance: Your post from another thread: " I think most everyone has had enough of the gay community forcing this immoral life style on society. OH wait, Lady Gaga said "you're born this way" so it must be true. Being gay is a choice!"

I can not believe any homosexual has forced his or her "immoral" life style on you. No one is forcing you to be gay, watch gay lovemaking, or partake in any gay events, why are you so against them living their life? Live and let live, and try very hard not to judge...

Trish, are you saying that you disagree with the marriage amendment? You know that means that you do not want the state to define a marriage as between one man and one woman, right?

Susan's attitude on this subject is typical of the intolerance of the left. That which is not currently in style is "ignorant".

The ideology of self government - of freedom - demands that we have the ability to choose our behavior. We can quibble about "orientation" (whatever that means), but being "out" means speaking and acting in ways that may meet with the disapproval of those who hold traditional views on sexual morality. Homosexuality may have an innate component, but it is about behavior, and the behavior - like all sexual behavior - is by choice.

Susan highlights why this issue is a threat to those who insist on maintaining freedom and the right to disapprove. I'm quite sure that Susan would be comfortable making my disapproval a legal issue, punishable by the law. Redefining marriage would be a big step along this road.

Donald, you were really starting to win me over with some of your views...now, after your "intolerance of the left" statement, I may reconsider.

If you actually read and thought about what I said, you would realize that I was not intolerant of the disagreement, but of the ignorance. Yes, ignorance, defined as: lack of knowledge or information. Those who are not gay, can never understand what it means to be gay.

Donald, sometime you really do need to get off your soap box. And BTW, internal feelings and emotions are not "behavior".

And grow up....do you really believe that I think your disapproval should be considered punishable? I have to wonder if you have actually read my posts, or if you just decided to skip over that important part of a conversation.

Those who oppose the marriage amendment frequently do so on the basis of a "discrimination" or "human rights" argument. I know of few people who make these arguments who do not take the next step and believe that the law - as with race - should be used to enforce "anti-discrimination". If this is not true in Susan's case, I would like to hear about it.

Ignorance is a term usually attached to hard facts. Human behavior and the nature of urges is not in that league. There remains considerable debate over nature vs nurture, and yes, the nature of homosexuality. Characterizing a difference of opinion "ignorance" is derisive, and not helpful with civil discussion.

I can't "know what it is like" to be elderly when I'm 30 years old, but if I were in the legislature, no one would suggest that I should recuse myself from discussions on the issues of the elderly. Discussions of this nature are appropriate and necessary, and we can talk about each other without "being" each other.

Donald, you do read like a savvy communicator. However, in response to Susan’s “ignorant” statement, I found your defensive approach very cliché ….something right out of the playbooks from the right wing media. So, the same can be said of you if we must play the right/left wing game. Although, I don’t think the right or left would deny that ignorance along with fear and definitely money has in part been a significant obstacle from granting equal rights on past issues – you pick the issue.

Also, Donald, of course someone who is being discriminated against has to speak out with disapproval; it’s called being in the minority! Also, are you gay now Donald and speaking for the gay community on what it means to be out? I’m not gay but I would suppose this has many different meaning for folks. One being a sense of freedom and wanting to take advantage of the same rights you and I take for granted.

Let’s not quibble about orientation or behavior any longer and remember a good offense is not always a good defense. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from another citizen Donald, but like someone famous once said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Let’s stop exhibiting such fear….I know Susan doesn’t want to have you punished by law. Maybe watch a Michael Moore documnetry. :)

Kind Regards.

I will let Donald's statement be my reply:

"The ideology of self government - of freedom - demands that we have the ability to choose our behavior. We can quibble about "orientation" (whatever that means), but being "out" means speaking and acting in ways that may meet with the disapproval of those who hold traditional views on sexual morality. Homosexuality may have an innate component, but it is about behavior, and the behavior - like all sexual behavior - is by choice."

Go ahead people, you can be gay, but don't "act" on it.....ridiculous...

Donald, corporations are not people, they are a separate legal entity formed for certain benefits and protections. Yes, they are run by people, but the corporation itself is not flesh and blood.

So tell me which is it? Is it good or bad for these "non-persons" to take a stand on political issues?

Taking a stand, and voicing your opinion is one thing (not necessarily good or bad), donating millions of dollars, is quite another. For the record, I don't think corporations OR people should be able to give unlimited funds to campaigns, superpacs, etc.

If a corporation wants to take a stand on politics I have no problem with that as long as it is public - and if they donate money that donation is instantly noted on a public forum for all to see.

As for unlimited amounts of money - my feeling is that if a company or wealthy person wants to donate millions they will find a way either directly or through some other means.

However, I believe that every donation to every entity that is engaged in a political campaign, issue, etc... should be immediately disclosed for the world to see.

No hiding behind "charitable groups", no waiting six months or more to have to disclose, etc...

If you want to give - give until it hurts - but have it disclosed right away so everyone knows who is funding what...

Corporations cannot "speak" or "take a stand" without spending money. They print up announcements, buy advertising, and pay the salaries of PR people to make statements. The larger the company, the more expensive the message. They often "speak" through the marketing department, and break down the expenses by issue or campaign, so you can often see what they spend.

So, if General Mills spends $1 million advertising that it supports the defeat of the marriage amendment, do you approve of this, or do you condemn this with the idea that corporations are not people and should not be involved in politics?

Donald - as I noted I do not believe that Corporations are people, however, if we want to allow them to spend money in politics - that's fine (personally I would prefer some type of cap) - but either way...

If a company wants to spend money to promote or defeat a gay marriage amendment, a gun rights issue, a toxic waste site cleanup, which is better Apple Pie or Cherry Pie, et al.... fine.

But, while they can spend whatever they want - all donations and money spent on politics should be immediately (or as quickly as possible) made public for the world to see - no hiding - no playing games because your scared of consequences - if you want to play in the game let everyone know you are on the field and which team you are playing on.

Those of us who have run for office, and dealt with campaign finance laws know how the laws fail to accomplish their goals while adding burdens and obstacles to those who want to participate in politics, while undermining the law in general by being vague and unenforceable.

The Federalist Papers were written and distributed anonymously. The right of anonymous political persuasion is long and deep. The "DISCLOSE" act is not an improvement. It is a tool for incumbents to harass challengers in politics.

There are Republicans who understand this. The Democrats are stil laboring under the illusion that federal control and scrutiny of the finance of every political campaign will enhance political liberty - an idea that is absurd on its face.

The Republicans didn't vote to keep things secret because of their deep concern for the Federalist Papers...

They did it because at the current time they believe they are benefiting from it.

It is always interesting to hear people argue for keeping things secret when they shout about Freedom.

I am not currently running for office. I defend my freedom - and yours - out of conviction. I can't speak for all Republicans, but I know many who share my conviction.

Edward -- funny thing about bias. People use certain baised laws as a wedge issue to get moderates agitated and have them vote for them. And Obama and company are desperate to hang onto to every moderate they can ....because the failure of the Democrats over the past 4 years to improve the economy is so glaring.

Funny that the party that initiated the "Disclose" law doesn't want their major source of funds (union dues) to be disclosed and therefore that disclosure wasn't part of the bill.

Funny...but the hypocrisy of Democrats isn't funny to Americans

I have absolutely no problem with a corporation taking a stand on social issues or donating to political campaigns but they should have to reveal those donations. That way I can decide if it is a corporation I choose to give my money to.

Gonna get kind of sick eating cereal for 3 meals a day aren't you?

I completely agree with this statement.

Oh, everyone has a right to voice their opinion on whatever topic they like...

However, note that "everyone has a right to voice their opinion" means that if someone voices their opinion - then others can also voice their opinion about the opinion...

I think what upsets a lot of people is that it was "ok" in society to essentially speak out against gay people for so long that it just seemed ordinary and people would mock people who stood up for gay people.

But now that others are openly defending gay people the push back can be a bit jarring as it isn't something that was seen until just recently in our society.

WTF Rob? No attack on the conservative? A thoughtful, insightful answer?

I love this response from you.

Rob - look at the response that Jodi Foster got when she apparently came out the wrong way. It isnt enough that she came out, she needs to also do it a certain way.

Yo Mammy has a very valid point. Yo Mammy is apparently also a KQRS morning show fan.