Tag Archives: gay rights

Could Gay Rights Turnout Operation Sink the First Pro-Gay Marriage President in History?

Posted on by
Reply

In the Halloween season it’s always fun to tell far-fetched scary stories.  This one is pretty darn scary, and may not be as far-fetched as some.

What if the opponents of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage inadvertently helped unseat the first President in history to endorse gay marriage?

Here is how it could happen:

President Obama’s lead looks to be narrowing in Minnesota.

At the same time, a massive and well-organized army of gay rights supporters, looking at razor thin poll margins of their own, is desperate to turn out anyone who will oppose the marriage ban amendment.

To win, marriage rights supporters need amendment opponents to vote, so you would assume they will go to great lengths — mailings, calls, door-knocking, rides to the polls — to make sure that happens.

Gay rights supporters need to turn out every single vote, including (cue the scary music) the 15% of amendment opponents who are Republicans.

Because a recent Star Tribune survey found that 93% of Minnesota Republicans are voting against President Obama, turning out pro-gay rights Republicans en masse could hurt the President’s reelection prospects in a close election.

And if turning out pro-gay rights, anti-Obama voters caused Minnesota to unexpectedly sneak into the Romney column, the electoral college math could get much more difficult for the President than it currently looks.

And so the question becomes, is Minnesotans United for All Families’ get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive a treat, or a trick?

(Maniacal laugh)

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Seriously, “Minnesotans for Marriage?” The Nazi Card?

Posted on by
1

Imagine for a moment that former Governor Jesse Ventura had compared the campaign of his 2010 U.S. gubernatorial opponent Norm Coleman to Nazi persecution.   Because Coleman is Jewish, and we all know that Jews were targeted for mass genocide by the Nazis, Ventura would have been rightfully derided by the press on the front pages, and rejected by many shocked Minnesotans.  The outrage would have been widespread, because comparing the persecuted to the persecutors is one of the most outrageous things any of us can imagine.

Well, yesterday it was reported on the Star Tribune blog that an official from the anti-freedom-to-marry group “Minnesotans for Marriage” shamefully played his own Nazi card.  Speaking to a group in Brainerd, Reverend Brad Brandon was selling the crowd on a parallel between Hitler’s suppression of religious freedom and the alleged suppression of religious freedom by supporters of the freedom to marry.

Perhaps because he saw jaws dropping in the audience he was addressing, Reverend Brandon did try to take a bit of edge off the argument:

 “We’re not saying that one side or the other is equal to Adolph Hitler and the atrocities that were committed in Nazi Germany. What we are simply saying is that when a totalitarian dictator takes place and wants to suppress the voice of a group…. they use certain tactics.”

Or to paraphrase, “We’re not saying the gays and their supporters are acting like Hitler, just that they are using the same tactics as Hitler.”  Doesn’t that just make you feel SO much better?

Along with the obvious fact that  fighting for the freedom for all American to marry in no way resembles the persecution and genocide carried out by the Nazis, there also is the small historical matter of the Nazi’s brutal persecution of, well, gays.    A quick history recap from the Holocaust Museum website:

 ”The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a “degeneracy” that threatened the “disciplined masculinity” of Germany. Denounced as “antisocial parasites” and as “enemies of the state,” more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.

In the racist practice of Nazi eugenics, women were valued primarily for their ability to bear children. The state presumed that women homosexuals were still capable of reproducing. Lesbians were not systematically persecuted under Nazi rule, but they nonetheless did suffer the loss of their own gathering places and associations.

Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.

Gays suffered beatings, castration, imprisonment and death at the hands of the Nazis, and now gays are being accused by those fighting to limit their rights of being Nazi-like?

I know we all have outrage fatigue at this stage of the silly season.  There are so many over-the-top statements being made that it all starts to get lost in the campaign clutter.  But in terms of degree of outrage, comparing Nazi persecution to the effort to allow Americans to love whomever they want is in a category all by itself.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Is Target Still Playing Kingmaker?

Posted on by
Reply

About 16-months ago at Minnesota-based Target Corporation’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, an embattled Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel stressed that Target would heretofore remain neutral on the issue of gay rights, but would continue to make political donations.   A June 9, 2011 Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal headline characterized the balancing act Steinhafel was attempting:

CEO: Target will be neutral on marriage vote, will still give politically

Steinhafel’s neutrality pledge came on the heels of a customer backlash prompted by the corporation making a large political donation to anti-gay rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.  Remember all the news stories, boycotts, social media rants, and flash dance protests?

At the time Steinhafel made this announcement in Pittsburgh, I wondered how Target could  possibly manage to support political candidates while keeping its neutrality pledge, since virtually all candidates take positions on gay rights issues.   After all, the world community would no longer consider Switzerland neutral if it was funding a combatant.

So, what is Target doing now?  In the 2012 election, what candidates are being funded by Target, or has Target decided to stay out of politics altogether?

My drive-by Googling can’t find the answer to this question.  After all that coverage and controversy in 2010 and 2011, could it be no business or political reporter has followed up with Target?

Hey General Mills, Make Pop Tarts, Not Politics

Posted on by
Reply

In this morning’s news, Best Buy and other corporations announced that they are joining a growing list of corporations pulling out of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ).  The corporations are doing so because they were worried about their valuable brands getting muddied from fallout due to ALEC’s aggressive advocacy of “stand your ground” gun laws, such as the one at the center of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

Best Buy’s decision is smart brand management.  Goodness knows, it has enough issues of its own to solve.  Best Buy doesn’t need to add to its woes by putting its  brand in the middle of the political knife fights over the most polarizing political issues of our times.

Which brings me to General Mills and its opposition to the marriage ban amendment that will be on Minnesota ballots in November.

As  a voter, I strongly oppose the marriage ban amendment.  I’m actively opposing it.  The idea that any loving, committed people are banned from getting married is an embarrassment.  So I wholeheartedly agree with General Mills’ sentiment.

What could possibly go wrong here?

But as a public relations guy, I find General Mills involvement in this ballot issue monumentally stupid.

General Mills should focus on what it was created to do– make and market packaged food.   It should stay out of ballot questions — all issues, all candidates, all the time.

Why?  First, it’s bad brand management.  You spend billions building brands over the years, only to put them in the middle of bitterly divisive political battles?  Really?

Second, it’s bad democracy.  To state the obvious, it is notable that President Lincoln described our democracy as “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  He didn’t go with “of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.”  That comment might sound trite, but its true.  The “demos” (δῆμος ) in democracy aint Greek for “C-Suite.”

General Mills should leave democracy to the demos — its employees, customers and others.  That is who is supposed to decide societal issues in a democracy.   I admire General Mills’ leaders for wanting to stand up for equality for all of their employees.  It is making the mistake for all the right reasons.  But it is a mistake.

So please, General Mills, stay out of politics, even politics that I support.  To improve our democracy, give your employees ample time off to exercise their individual choices on Election Day.  Beyond that, make Pop Tarts, not politics.

Loveland

Will Changes Among Religious Minnesotans Make the Difference In Minnesota’s Gay Marriage Vote?

Posted on by
Reply

One politically interesting aspect of the marriage ban amendment on Minnesota’s ballot this November is the potential Lutheran Effect.

Even if we didn’t have Garrison Keillor to constantly remind us, it’s no secret that Minnesota has a lot of Lutherans.  Wikipedia tells me that something like a million Minnesotans are Lutheran (24% of the state), with 81% of Minnesota worshiping under the banner of the  Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which is much more progressive than the Missouri Synod brand of Lutherans.

In fact, Minnesota has one of the highest percentages of Lutherans of any state in the nation.  The religious landscape in Minnesota is vastly different than it is in, say, North Carolina, which recently was the latest in a long line of states to pass a marriage ban amendment.    Luternans are 24% of the population in Minnesota, but just 2% in North Carolina.

All of this raises the question:  What impact will Minnesota’s Lutheran-heavy religious landscape have on the marriage ban amendment Republicans have put on Minnesota’s November ballot.

Relatively speaking, the Lutherans are progressive on the issue of gay rights.  Four synods of the local ELCA-ers recently formally opposed the Minnesota marriage ban amendment pushed by Minnesota’s social conservatives, and I don’t think the votes were close.

Lutheranophile Garrison Keillor observes:

“Lutherans…are the sort of people you could call up when you’re in deep distress. If you’re dying, they’ll comfort you. If you’re lonely, they’ll talk to you. And if you’re hungry, they’ll give you tuna salad.”

And if you’re discriminated against?

This charitable attitude looks to be even stronger among young Lutherans.  For instance, a popular song among Lutheran youth, “Party in the ELCA” (a parody of Miley Cyrus’s “Party in the USA”) has the following lyrics:

“We’re coming as we are (sinners and saints),
Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay.
YEAH! It’s a party in the ELCA!
”

“Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay,” indeed.  This “Party in the ELCA” is not exactly the type of religious party the Minnesota Republican Party is hoping for on Election Day 2012.

And it’s not just the Lutheran Effect.  It’s now also the Methodist Effect.  Over the weekend, the Methodists just took  basically the same position as the ELCA.  Methodists make up another 4% of Minnesotans, making them the fourth largest denomination in Minnesota, just behind the Baptists at 5%.

And what about Catholics, who are almost tied with Lutherans as the top religion in Minnesota, claiming 25% of the population?  Can we presume that Minnesota Catholics want to ban gay marriage?

Yes, but it’s not as overwhelming as some might think.  If Minnesota Catholics are anything like national Catholics, 46% of national Catholics support gay marriage, rapidly trending upwards from 40% in 2007.

Hmmm, the times are changing for Catholics too?  “Doesn’t matter if your straight or gay?  It’s a party in the Opus Dei?”

Many Minnesota social conservatives seem to make the mistake of assuming that the  marriage ban amendment debate is a strictly battle of the religious versus the irreligious, and that they will therefore easily win because the irreligious are so few (14% in Minnesota).

But increasingly, religious Minnesotans – looking to the empathetic teachings of the Golden Rule and the tolerance teachings of the Sermon on the Mount – are opposing gay bashing schemes like the proposed marriage ban amendment.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on Minnpost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Three Myths About Minnesotans and Same Sex Marriage

Posted on by
1

A recent SurveyUSA poll of Minnesotans included this question:

“President Obama says that same sex couples should be able to get married.  Do you agree with the president? Or disagree?”

The poll findings bust three popular myths about Minnesotans and same sex marriage:

Myth #1:  “Over Greater Minnesota’s Dead Body.”   The political conventional wisdom goes like this:  “The purple haired hipsters in Uptown may be for gay marriage, but traditional Main Street folks in Greater Minnesota will never stand for it.”  That conventional wisdom is wrong.  There is very little regional difference in support for gay marriage.  Support is roughly the same in the Twin Cities (53%), southern Minnesota (54%), and western Minnesota (51%).  Those three regions all fall within the 4% margin of error.  Only northeastern Minnesota (49% support) falls below the majority threshold, and is statistically different from the Twin Cities, but just barely.   Republicans need to realize that Main Street is not Narrow Street.

Myth #2:  “Only Radical Liberal Extremists Want Gay Marriage.”   This has been the conservative line for years.  But it doesn’t stand up to the data.  A pretty solid majority (55%) of self-described “moderates” and “independents” (54%) in Minnesota agree with the President on gay marriage.  If a majority of moderates support something, it can hardly be considered radical.  Support for gay marriage is now a mainstream position in Minnesota.

Myth #3:  “Marriage ban amendments pass everywhere, so it can’t be defeated in Minnesota.”  This poll found that 52% of Minnesotans support the President’s position and 42% oppose it.  There is a long way to go before the November election, but if this isn’t a dead myth, it is surely a rapidly dying one.  Literally.  The biggest source of opposition comes from people over 65 years old (only 33% support) support, and as time marches on younger generations will hold more electoral sway.  The support among Minnesota’s 18-34 year olds is running at an overwhelming 68%.

It’s very clear where this issue is headed.  In 2012, gay Minnesotans are hardly the societal aberrations they’ve been portrayed to be my whole life.  Statistically speaking, the 82% of Tea Partiers who adamantly oppose Obama on gay marriage are now the societal aberrations.

Loveland