Another major American company has gone “gay,” with Target officially signing onto a court action seeking to strike down the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
Jodee Kozlak, a human resources officer, said in a statement Target joined several other national companies to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of “marriage equality.” The case is pending in the Seventh Circuit.
“As our leadership team discussed signing on, we took time to consider the bigger questions at hand. This brief is important, as the issues it addresses have significant impact on businesses. But it is more than that, and we agreed that now is the right time to more directly share our views on this issue.
“It is our belief that everyone should be treated equally under the law, and that includes rights we believe individuals should have related to marriage,” she wrote.
The flood of comments that followed showed deep division over the company’s new political and religious position.
“Just lost my business,” said Mike McAfee. “I hold to the truth that God designed marriage and not man, and that God set up marriage between one man and one woman.”
“This is one guest, ex-guest, that you did offend and she does not shop there anymore. So while you are catering to some 2 percent of the world, you are excluding more than 50 percent of the world. But that is your right. So go ahead and see where it gets you in the long run,” said Laura Louise Finley.
Samuel M. Pierce Jr. said: “As a Christian, I find it very offensive that Target is joining others in making a mockery of marriage. Marriage is defined between man and woman. Man cannot be a bride nor a woman a groom.”
Carey B. Hall, citing the company’s emphasis on marriage “equality,” said: “The next marriage equality: marry your dog, two couples being married to each other. Three people being married … the people have endless ideas on marriage equality … one perversion leads to another, that’s just how SIN is.”
Which prompted Christopher Boudewyns, on the other side of the argument, to write: “Oh, honestly, shut up. Grow up and do something productive to help the world. God is embarrassed for you for that comment.”
Samantha Downing wrote: “I have worked for Target for five years and am very proud to say I have a picture of my wife and I in my office without fear of discrimination or judgement!”
Other companies that previously had signed onto the brief in the court case over marriage included Microsoft, CBS and Time Warner.
Kozlak continued: “We believe that everyone – all of our team members and our guests – deserve to be treated equally. And at Target we are proud to support the LGBT community.”
Forbes reported the brief seeks to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
At American Decency, Lisa Van Houten pointed out same-sex marriage already is legal in Minnesota, where the company is headquartered.
In 2012, however, Target declined to take sides in a state referendum that sought to ban same-sex marriage.
At the time, the company said, “We recognize that there is a broad range of strongly held views on the Minnesota Marriage amendment.”
Van Houten said someone “should explain to Target that ‘equality’ doesn’t mean sameness.”
“I as a female may be equal in worth to a man, but I am not the same. There are many things we as individuals are not legally allowed to do without meeting certain criteria – that does not mean we aren’t treated equally under the law. And certain criteria and limitations have always applied to marriage in this nation of freedoms. Any adult can be married – as long as they meet the criteria. And the criterion that has stood since God ordained the institution of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ”
The column pointed out homosexuals were upset with the company in 2010 for supporting a GOP gubernatorial candidate who opposed homosexual marriage.
“Some reports claim this latest move by Target to push the homosexual agenda is an effort to win back support from the LGBT community. However, with the recent survey results from the Centers for Disease Control revealing that less than 3 percent of the United States population identifies as gay or bi-sexual, and 96.6 percent of Americans label themselves as heterosexual, why is Target more fearful of offending LGBT shoppers instead of Christian shoppers?”
She noted: “A spokesperson for the Minnesota Family Council, which led the fight against homosexual marriage in Minnesota warned, ‘This is a very risky business decision and ultimately the wrong one because it is families that shop at Target. People in Minnesota are still deeply divided on this issue.'”
WND reported one week ago an appeals court struck down a state constitutional definition of marriage, prompting a law professor to note that the doors now seem to be wide open.
“With this decision, I think you see another example of the courts exercising legislative powers. They actually believe they have the right to make new law, and now they’re not even afraid of proclaiming that in their decision,” said Liberty Counsel Special Counsel Rena Lindevaldsen, who is also a dean and professor at the Liberty University School of Law.
However, it is the summary argument from the court that raised eyebrows about how widely same-sex marriage activists may want to broaden the definition.
“Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provides unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance,” the court said.
“I do see that as a risk,” Lindevaldsen said. “First you have the court proclaiming that the right is ever-expanding, and then you have this language that adults should be free to choose to love who they want to love. We already have challenges to the polygamy bans. We have a movement out there suggesting that two, three, four, five people should be able to come together in the marital union. So this opens that door entirely. Once you’ve opened the door past one man and one woman, which has historical and foundational roots, what’s to say the line can’t be drawn to allow two, three, four and five people to marry?”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rena Lindevaldsen:
WND also reported recently that many of same-sex marriage’s advances have been made by federal judges, who are not accountable to voters or constituents.