Open Letter “Praises” Minnesota Anti-Gay Group’s Campaign Against General Mills

At the end of June, a young activist showed up at General Mills headquarters in Minnesota to address anti-gay protestors from Minnesota For Marriage, who were chastising the breakfast-cereal company for standing against a proposed ban on marriage equality. Rather than engage the “Dump General Mills” crowd, this daring youth sprinkled the haters with glitter, like some giant kindergarten project.

Today, we received an open letter addressing MFM and the “vicious” attack that left tens of people mildly irritated. At first we didn’t know whether to laugh or be outraged. Hey, it’s Friday.

Here’s the letter:

Dear Minnesota For Marriage,

First of all, let me applaud you for courageously standing up for marriage, a sacred institution that has been under malicious attack since the dawn of time.

The veracity of this attack was seen most recently during your protest outside the offices of General Mills, when a young teenage girl and/or boy (you can never tell with the gays) viciously glittered seniors and young children. Some, as your Web site notes, were even “as young as three.” If I’ve learned one thing in life, it’s that young children HATE glitter, and generally consider it assault, as do we, when they get it all over themselves.

It took a lot of courage, like soldier-going-overseas-and-getting-shot-at courage, to stand up against such a flamboyant assault on democracy. How I wish I could have seen the faces of all those “hundreds of protestors” you bragged about on your site. Unfortunately, it seems the ultra wide-angle shot of the group you posted to your site only managed to get about 25 people in it…

And don’t get me started on the audacity of General Mills. Who do they think they are opposing this amendment by saying things like “We value diversity. We value inclusion. We always have and we always will.” Are those things Jesus would have stood for? I don’t think so. And are those the kind of values we want to teach our now-covered-in-glitter-get-your-freakin-hands-out-of-your-nose-I-wish-I-would-have-never-given-you-this-art-project children?

I think not.

Click through to read more of the letter

Photo: Minnesota for Marriage


Aside from General Mills, though, the broader goal of re-redefining marriage to prevent others from redefining it and others after that to redefine it some more in some redefining carnival-like game show is drastically important. Once something’s been defined, that’s it. No other definitions allowed, buddy, so back off. The definition of marriage has been written in Webster’s dictionary for, like, millennia now—maybe even before the Earth formed. And just like the institution of marriage, dictionary companies are never going to chang…oh, they’re bankrupt? Well, my point still stands. You know why? Because I’ve defined my points to mean “always right, regardless,” and definitions can’t change.

Like your site also says, “If activist judges or politicians were to succeed in redefining marriage in Minnesota, marriage will be redefined for everyone.” Unlike most of your arguments, which appear to be based solely on reasoning that activist, liberal judges (damn you John Roberts!) wouldn’t appreciate or understand, like “because we said it’s the truth,” this one actually has historical backing.

Take the case of Loving V. Virginia, where activist judges unanimously redefined marriage and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage…for everyone. WTF Virginia. Luckily, you’ve warned us what would happen again if marriage were re-redefined. “Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs, traditions, morals or ethnic upbringing are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences” – just like they were after that decision.

If only those activist judges would have heard your arguments back then, maybe they would have changed their minds…oh, those same arguments WERE used back then? Well, we cannot let that happen again.
Where is this country headed if we can’t indiscriminately discriminate against people? I mean, I should have the right to hate Jimmy because he’s gay and make laws for everyone based on that hate. That means I don’t want him to get married, adopt, visit his loved one in the hospital or have a job. And I want that put into law. I don’t hate gay people though, I just their gayness. I mean, come one, do they really have to be THAT gay?

And while I’ll never stop being a fan of you and your cause (unless you take your Facebook page down, then I guess I’d automatically “un-fan” you), I must say, I’m a little disappointed because I believe your amendment support doesn’t go far enough.

Sure, fighting to make something that hasn’t happened yet but could in the future but is also federally outlawed and is already illegal in the state but COULD happen so we need to make it triply illegal is a great cause and all, but I’m afraid it’s just not enough.

Enshrining the definition of marriage into something as vague as only one man and one woman leaves a whole load of vulnerable slope behind that – and I must say, that slope looks awfully slippery. Go on, touch it. Feel how slippery that is?

Leaving aside incestuous incest lovers, which is hard to do for our group, I know (for some reason, same-sex marriage opponents like us LOVE talking about bestiality, incest and sex with ice cream cones [for real, look it up]), this amendment leaves open the very real threat of man on blow-up doll marriages. Apart from reading about it on the Internet and places similar to that, like the Web and the Net, I have friends who say their friends have seen and heard people talking about wanting to make it legal.

Of course getting married to an inanimate object is already illegal, but do we really want to leave the door open to future challenges from activist judges like John Roberts, who would use the man-on-woman amendment to allow for such a thing? I don’t think so.

Therefore, I urge you to strengthen your stance on traditional marriage. Let’s make Minnesota the most traditionally traditional marriage state ever – in the history of tradition. And with your help, and the help of the 25 people who showed up at the prote…I mean the hundreds of people who showed up at the protest, we can make that dream a reality.

Yours forever and always,