We can expect aggression on marriage vote

  • Updated: October 22, 2011 - 6:51 PM

Amendment opponents are poised at the slippery slope of intimidation.

  • 166
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ebfauvelOct. 22, 11 7:45 PM

Boo hoo, Katherine. Minnesota Republicans picked this fight by putting the amendment up for a public vote.

We gay men and women are fed up with being harrased for who we are. We are fed up with being first-class taxpayers, but second-class citizens denied the right to enter a civil, legal contract to protect our families. We are fed up with watching GLBT kids get bullied in schools while the adults do nothing. We are fed up with being told that we are sick, sinners, and anti-American.

I must say that Maggie Gallagher and her "anti-defamation league" have certainly perfected the art of painting opponents of marriage equality as victims. News flash: they're not the victims. They are the perpetrators of a movement to control a minority community of which they don't approve. The Prop 8 trial proved that denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage is based mostly on animus. Exhibit A is Maggie herself; she is full of hate.

If conservatives can boycott Disneyland, gays can boycott Target, a diner or a dentist.

Do you blame us for being angry, Katherine? How would *you* feel if *you* were denied the right to enter a legal contract because *others* -- perfect strangers -- disapproved of it? I don't see your side coming up with any workable solutions. You simply want to maintain the status quo despite it being discriminatory. Sorry, but that won't work for us.

I'll close my comment with a quote from one of the witnesses called to testify in favor of California's Prop 8: "We will be more American the day after we have same-sex marriage than we were the day before." See that, Katherine? Even *your own witness* admitted that denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage is un-American!

bettyanneOct. 22, 11 8:36 PM

Unfortunately Ms Kersten the slippery slope of intimidation and hate and violence has long been breached by your side of this argument. You are not the victim.

goferfanzOct. 22, 11 8:39 PM

Yes, ebf is my "go-to" source for civility, he having just (on a prior thread) enjoyed the old legal problems of another person........Yet, this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Most people I know stopped writing letters to the editor after the 2000 elections because our homes literally became the target for hate speech or vandalism. The libs still seem to be writing in large numbers, don't they? ;oD....Didnt even the Strib recently stop allowing comments on letters due to the online vitriol? Civil discourse has really become passe in our modern society, and the first post well demonstrates that point. Animus is an odd choice of a word, but really what better illustrates our current America than Dick Cheney vs Barack Obama: One is referred to as Darth Vader for daring to waterboard a few prisoners well-known for their crimes.... The other has embraced the widespread use of drone attacks in many, many countries-->using a Hellfire missile with its large, unprejudiced kill zone. Thus, the target (foreign or American citizen) and many unfortunate bystanders are summarily executed without any oversight--> judicial, political, or otherwise to the apparent approval of his minions who inexplicably despise Cheney...... I agree with Katherine's overall assessment but I have seen the judgements and actions of the other side and thus predict dark days ahead for our Republic.

norselandcOct. 22, 11 9:32 PM

The tyranny of the minority must be a substantial problem for those have been apparently overwhelmed by it! Marriage, nay, heterosexuality itself, is wholly threatened by a couple of acts of violence against it. What a sad and downtrodden people are those who suffer with the burden of the fear of losing the ability to deny rights to others.

mhindinOct. 22, 1111:02 PM

Catholic Bishops strive to impose Canon law on Minnesotans! (Bishops begin fight for marriage vote. October 15, 2011) Catholic Church hierarchy insists on continuing the centuries old practice of enforcing its will and Canon Law on us by co-opting civil authority. Church governance has gone badly for non-Catholics and many Catholics over the centuries. Study the Inquisition, anti-Semitism, royalty, colonization, birth control, or the crusades. Many were tortured, burned, or otherwise slaughtered for not submitting to the Church’s will. My ancestors fled such places. The Puritans initiated enforcing church law on the entire colony. Catholic Bishops stubbornly resist repeal of similar faith based laws governing private consenting adult behavior. The Bishops strenuously fought to deny First Amendment rights to reproductive information and practices even when many American Catholics disagree. Now, the Bishops want to insert Canon Law on marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. Bishops have the right and responsibility to teach and enforce Canon Law on Catholic marriage, protected by the same First Amendment. They never have to marry anyone outside of Canon Law. The marriage amendment will not enhance Catholic marriage, or mine; yet, the Bishops seek to enforce Canon Law on all Minnesotans! The founders wisely wrote the First Amendment to protect us from such state enforced religious law. Defend our Constitution and all Minnesota families against imposition of Canon Law. Vote “NO” to constitutional meddling.

talktalkOct. 23, 1112:13 AM

"Exhibit A is Maggie herself; she is full of hate."

A strong accusation, founded on what, besides her opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage? It probably comes as a shock to ebfauvel that such opponents are motivated by a wish to preserve one man-one woman marriage, and not by hatred of homosexuals. By his ready use of the word "hate", however, maybe it is eb who is the hater.

And if the mod doesn't like my suggestion on the basis that it constitutes a personal attack (though it does not), then eb's 7:45 post must also be removed, as he makes the same suggestion about another.

talktalkOct. 23, 1112:14 AM

mhindin's post would mean something if the Catholics were the only conservative religious denomination opposed to "gay marriage."

orpheus90Oct. 23, 1112:15 AM

Three rather glaring, obvious points are sufficient to skewer Kersten's hypocritical drivel. 1) The Marriage Amendment neither "protects" or "supports" marriage, nor does it in any manner enforce, as Kersten claims, a "belief that children need a mother and a father." In fact, the Marriage Amendment doesn't do a damn thing to help married people or their families. Rather, the Marriage Amendment is designed for one purpose: to penalize and ultimately deny equal protection to gay couples and the children that many of them are raising, and whom they will continue to raise regardless whether this amendment is passed. So, unless the right wing has plans to start stripping gay parents of their children at some future point, make no mistake: the intent of the amendment is punitive, driven by sheer animus and nothing else. It protects no one and is only designed to hurt those that don't fit into the cookie cutter political conceit that right wingers are refashioning marriage into. Moreover, that Kersten would actually attempt to make an analogy between current marriage amendment supporters and those courageous figures that denounced Jim Crow during the Civil Rights era may well be the most ghastly, shameless piece of Orwellian revisionism she's ever put forward. If anything the Marriage Amendment operates well within the repressive ideological traditions of Jim Crow, a system maintained to relegate a group of citizens to 2nd class status. And there's no mistaking this: that's precisely what the Marriage Amendment does to gay citizens.

talktalkOct. 23, 1112:16 AM

“‘There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases, the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner,’ said sexual activist and former ACLU attorney Chai Feldblum before President Obama appointed her to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where she now has power to try to enforce that view. ‘I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,’ she said.


Indeed, isn’t this the reason that the religious liberty exemptions in the New York marriage redefinition bill don’t include conscience exceptions for individuals or businesses? The idea is that everyone must accept the newly imposed values and live accordingly. A wedding photographer who can’t in good conscience use her artistic expression to make a same-sex ceremony look good as part of her creative work will be regarded no differently than the racist behind the lunch counter who doesn’t want to serve blacks. As Feldblum explained in The Brooklyn Law Review:

'Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT people.’” -- Brian Raum’s 10-20-2011 column in First Things.

talktalkOct. 23, 1112:17 AM

Another excerpt from Raum's column: “So if you’ve been on the fence about protecting marriage—wondering how someone else’s same-sex ‘marriage’ will affect your marriage—now you’ve got a good bit of the answer: if you’re part of the 62 percent of Americans who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman, prepare to be regarded as the Ku Klux Klan member next door—and for your children to be taught the same perspective at your local government-run school. As a post titled ‘Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?’ on the Queerty website put it: “'They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.’”


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters