In the final stretch, poll after poll show that the more Minnesotans take a look at the Voter Restriction Amendment, the more they’re saying send this mess back to the Legislature.
Helping the momentum to defeat this poorly written, expensive amendment, 65 newspapers across the Minnesota and across the ideological spectrum have editorialized against the Amendment. Watch Our Vote Our Future’s closing ad:
We can defeat this. The wind is at our backs, something no one would have predicted a few short months ago. Then, the Common Wisdom in Minnesota–even in some progressive circles–was that this was a fight we could not win. Polls showed large numbers of Minnesotans favored the concept of Voter ID.
The Bard of Big Lake: Mary Kiffmeyer’s “Artfully Written” Amendment
Some on the left have expressed frustration with Our Vote Our Future’s message of “send it back.” They complain that it accepts the premises that legislators acted in good faith when they put this on the ballot and that we need new legislation at all. These people are wrong, and the swing in public opinion should tell us so. You see, you don’t have to agree that all Voter ID legislation is wrong to agree that this particular amendment is a mess. That has been the broad message, big-tent message — delivered by prominent figures from three parties and a broad swath of local elected officials — that has swayed people that what seemed at first common sense was written by people who had none.
In a debate, the Bard of Big Lake assured us her Amendment was “artfully written.” She forgot to add, “And don’t I look stunning tonight?” (Photo, Capitol Chatter)
How badly is it written? Watch this MPR debate exchange between Representative Steve Simon and amendment author Representative Mary Kiffmeyer about the meaning of the “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification” requirements that would be placed on absentee voters (e.g, military serving abroad). After describing the language she wrote as “artfully written,” the Bard of Big Lake then says, well, a lot. There are many words – nouns and verbs and such, but not a whole lot of — what’s the word I’m looking for? — meaning.
Representative Simon puts a period at the end of Rep. Kiffmeyer’s ramble: “What a mess.” He probably doesn’t like Ezra Pound either.
The reality is that Representative Kiffmeyer and Dan McGrath of Minnesota Majority –the only two surrogates the pro-Amendment forces seem to be able to find– have in debate after debate skirted every question about the cost, complications and consequences of their Amendment by essentially saying “we’ll figure that out later.”
Well, our Constitution is not a bookmark. We don’t put Post-It Notes in our Constitution with reminders to “fix this later.” Minnesotans understand this and are, increasingly, saying: Send. It. Back.
How You can Help Today and Tomorrow:
1. Persuasion. Arm yourself with knowledge. Watch this video by Minnesota Public Radio yourself and maybe play it for undecided family members and friends:
Then ask yourself them: Should we be putting something with that many question marks in permanent ink, in our Constitution? Don’t fall into the temptation to argue the merits of their fraud argument. It has no merit, but that’s what they want us to be talking about. The costs, consequences, and complications of this poorly written Amendment are all we need to focus on.
2. We need to fill Get Out the Vote Phone and Door Shifts.
I’m told people were pouring in to the offices of TakeAction Minnesota and ISAIAH this weekend. They are flipping voters to our side at an astounding rate. Join them. Take Action lists its GOTV shifts here.
ISAIAH, the coalition of over 100 congregations, has been making thousands of phone calls. Want to talk to other people of faith? Information on how to volunteer with them is here.
If you live in the Fifth Congressional District, Congressman Ellison’s campaign has been fighting this fight from Day One and can also use some GOTV help today and tomorrow. Information can be found here.
If you caught any of the local news last night, you likely saw Minnesotans for Marriage tying themselves up into some very unnatural positions.
M4M Twisted into Many Unnatural Positions Explaining Pastor Brandon’s Forbidden Love for Inappropriate Metaphors.
Knot One. M4M can’t seem to explain how, on the one hand, in the words of campaigns spokeswoman Autumn Levya, “we were not aware that he was drawing the comparison that he did” while simultaneously acknowledging that Pastor Brandon made the inflammatory presentation – powerpoint and all! – at multiple campaign events with senior staff present, sometimes introducing the Lover of Metaphors, and sometimes following him — but never denouncing him.
Spokeswoman for M4M: “His Point Was Absolutely Correct”
Knot two. M4M can’t distance themselves from the Pastor too much: From the Fox Report:
A spokeswoman for Minnesota for Marriage said the reference was taken out of context or misunderstood, explaining that Brandon was trying to say that critics of gay marriage could be silenced if the amendment fails.
“He’s apologized and he’s apologized on behalf of the campaign. His point was absolutely correct; he was just using a poor analogy and an incorrect choice of words to make his religious liberties point,” Autumn Leva said. “He’s been instructed to no longer compare the loss of religious freedoms to Hitler and Nazi Germany.”
Got that? The video shows the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors challenging Pastor Brandon, him fighting back, and M4M calls it all a “poor analogy and an incorrect choice of words.”
Poor M4M. The Unbearable Victimhood of Vote Yes is such a heavy burden, they just can’t help themselves. As I’ve discussed before, even though they’re the ones asking Minnesota voters to privilege their scriptural readings in our secular Constitution, even though their argument rests on the offensive declaration that only families with a mother and a father are real families, and even though they can call their opponents all atheists and now Nazis — they’re the victims here!
Knot Three. What to do with the Good Reverend, Pastor Brandon? M4M claims the Pastor has “publicly” apologized for his comments but the WCCO report says “they can’t provide a recording or any proof of that.”
None of the television reports were able to reach Pastor Brandon for comment.
You’d think M4M could have helped with that. He is, after all – despite all of this, amazingly–still their employee.
Minnesotans for Marriage Communications Director Chuck Darrell didn’t feel the need to apologize when, some weeks ago, he suggested only atheists would vote no on the amendment to limit the freedom to marry.
But last night’s news had even the perennial victims at Minnesotans for Marriage declaring, “Oops!” It seems their Director of Faith Outreach was caught one more than one occasion and at official campaign events using Nazi imagery to describe the battle they are in. The Star Tribune reports:
For gays in the Third Reich, Nazism was not a metaphor.
The group pushing the marriage amendment apologized Monday after its director of church outreach told at least a couple small groups that the other side is using techniques similar to Adolph Hitler.
“I apologize that it wandered off in this direction,” said Andy Parrish, deputy campaign manager for Minnesota for Marriage. “It’s clearly not what we are talking about in this campaign.”
At an event recorded by the rival campaign, the Rev. Brad Brandon tells a group in Brainerd that Hitler suppressed religious freedom and that religious freedom is at stake in the marriage fight.
“We’re not saying that one side or the other is equal to Adolph Hitler and the atrocities that were committed in Nazi Germany,” Brandon said during a presentation that included a huge picture of the German ruler. “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.”
The headline of the Star Tribune Article says M4M “apologizes” for using the Nazi accusations. M4M’s Andy Parrish told the Star Tribune that Reverend Brandon’s discussion of Hitler “is not representative about how we feel about the other side. Pastor Brandon is going to get back on message that kids need a mom and a dad and why marriage is worth preserving.”
Notice what Mr. Parrish didn’t say? He did not say the outrageous Reverend Brandon was fired. He just said, Oops! – Promise not to do it again!
Sorry, Mr. Parrish, you don’t get to say “oops” when these statements were made more than once at official Minnesotans for Marriage events.
You don’t get to say “oops” when other members of your senior staff leadership were at these meetings, saw the Reverend put in his POWERPOINT and say these things and did not call him out on the spot. That suggests the Good Reverend was not so much “off message” has he was caught delivering one particular message to supporters your campaign thinks are open to hearing it.
Oops doesn’t cut it when you keep this man on your staff.
Oops doesn’t cut it when you should have known better. You see, Reverend Brandon has quite the past. Sally Jo Sorensen has helpfully compiled the Reverend’s Greatest Hits over at Bluestem Prairie, which include his wild accusation that gay rights activists were teaching children how to masturbate in the Capitol Rotunda. Oh yes, he’s that crazy.
And Oops doesn’t cut it when this fits a broader pattern of the M4M campaign saying outrageous things about the Vote No campaign and then hiding behind a dramatic whine. Unbearable Victimhood of Vote Yes indeed.
Minnesotans United’s Pastor Grant Stevensen: M4M is “bearing false witness.
So we knew it was coming. Minnesotans (for Meddling in Other People’s) Marriage released a new ad scarily warning of the dire consequences of defeating the Amendment to Limit the Freedom to Marry. Those who oppose same-sex marriage will be persecuted! You know, that Unbearable Victimhood of Vote Yes.
You can see M4M’s ad here and on a television near you.
Minnesotans United for All Families hit back hard, holding a press conference featuring Pastor Grant Stevensen, who said Minnesotans for Marriage was “bearing false witness” in its efforts to persuade and confuse Minnesota voters. The campaign has helpfully (and very quickly) provided the following fact-check, which I’m printing here in its entirety. Take a look, to help you with those conversations we need to defeat this thing:
A new ad from Minnesota for Marriage, entitled, “Not Live and Let Live,” makes inaccurate claims about the impact of the hurtful, freedom-limiting marriage amendment. This ad is an intentional attempt to mislead Minnesotans into a “yes” vote on this amendment, citing claims that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Minnesotans know better. What this amendment is really about is limiting a basic freedom for some Minnesotans – the freedom to marry – just because of who they are. Marriage is about love, commitment and responsibility, and gay and lesbian couples want to marry for similar reasons to anyone else. None of us would want to be told it’s illegal to marry the person we love, but that’s exactly what this amendment would do. This amendment mixes religion and politics in our state constitution, and represents too much intrusion.
TELLING THE TRUTH: NOT LIVE AND LET LIVE
TRANSCRIPT: When same-sex marriage has been imposed elsewhere, it has not been live and let live. People who believe marriage is one man and one woman have faced consequences. Small businesses fined, individuals fired, charities closed down, churches sued. Same-sex marriage taught to young children in elementary school and parents have no legal right to be notified or to take their children out of class that day. We can prevent this from happening here by voting yes on the marriage protection amendment.
CLAIM
Minnesota for Marriage – “Not Live and Let Live” 00:01
“When same-sex marriage has been imposed elsewhere, it has not been live and let live.”
FACT: None of the claims in this ad have anything to do with the impact of this amendment or with marriage. A No vote on this amendment will not legalize same-sex marriage. There is already a law on the books in Minnesota prohibiting it.
In cases where people have acted in violation of state or federal anti-discrimination laws they have faced charges or civil complaints, as they would in any state – regardless of that state’s marriage laws.
00:05
“People who believe marriage is one man and one woman have faced consequences.”
FACT:None of the stories presented in this ad are as as a result of the belief in marriage for same-sex couples. Those who have acted in violation of state or federal anti-discrimination laws have faced charges as they would in any state – regardless of that state’s marriage laws.
00:10
“Small businesses fined, (Image of Wildflower Inn, Vermont)
FACT: The claim regarding the Wildflower Inn in Vermont is intentionally misleading. This occurrence has nothing to do with marriage laws in Vermont. A complaint regarding this incident was filed under the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which states that public businesses and entities cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, sexual orientation, gender or any number of other factors.
00:12
“Individuals fired,”
FACT: While amendment proponents suggest that Mr. Goddard was fired for his public opposition to same-sex marriage, Mr. Goddard himself has admitted that it is entirely possible that his statement about marriage had nothing to do with his termination.
In fact, the network from which he was fired released a statement regarding their dismissal of Goddard that made no mention of his views on same-sex marriage. The statement read, “. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right for for our organization.”
00:13
“charities closed down”
FACT: The legalization of marriage for same-sex couples in Washington, D.C. had nothing to do with Catholic Charities decision to discontinue adoptions. Catholic Charities chose to discontinue their adoption program rather than obey long-standing non-discrimination laws.
Similar claims have been made about the Catholic Charities of Boston regarding their decision to end adoption services in 2006. The chair of their board at that time recently came forward to clarify that they stopped adoption services because the Vatican demanded it, saying, “People are suggesting that it had something to do with the [same-sex marriage law] that allowed for marriage equality. That’s not correct.”
00:15
“churches sued.”
FACT: This claim has nothing to do with the issue at hand here in Minnesota, and passing or defeating this amendment has nothing to do with such an accusation. Minnesota’s laws already protect people from discrimination and protect religious institutions from lawsuits.
00:16
“Same-sex marriage taught to young children in elementary school and parents have no legal right to be notified or to take their children out of class that day.”
FACT: This case has nothing to do with passing or defeating this amendment. This amendment is about limiting the freedom to marry here in Minnesota and
it has nothing to do with educational policy here or in Massachusetts. Additionally, we know that children are taught their most important values at home, from their families, not in schools.
The materials that were in the school were simply books that displayed the various forms that a loving family could take. The book featured gay parents, lesbian parents and single parents but made no reference to marriage in any way. The books were not required reading as a part of the Massachusetts educational curriculum.
00:25
“We can prevent this from happening here by voting yes on the marriage protection amendment.“
FACT: A yes vote on this amendment will do nothing to change existing state or federal anti-discrimination, employment or education policy laws. The MN Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination by businesses and public entities based on sexual orientation since 1993.
Just two days ago this blog warned of The Coming Civil Unions Ruse, where supporters of the amendment to limit the freedom to marry would start to tell voters that they can have their proverbial wedding cake and eat yours too.
All the Archbishop’s Men: Now Officially Funding a Lie
As Sunday’s Star Tribune Poll shows, even a majority of those planning to vote for the amendment believe in basic fairness for gay and lesbian couples and would support civil unions that would be “recognized as marriage in Minnesota.” I asked then if we would see the same pattern in Minnesota that other states have seen, where supporters of a constitutional amendment to limit the freedom to marry pretend to be for civil unions and then oppose legislative efforts to pass civil unions the second the balloting is over.
Yesterday on the St. Peter Herald’s website, News Editor Kurt Hildebrandt reported in Minnesota for Marriage brings message to St. Peter area, that M4M communications director Chuck Darrell was pushing civil unions as an alternative to marriage for committed same-sex couples should the marriage restriction amendment pass in November:
“Darrell does state that if the marriage amendment does get approval that it will not stop the debate on the issue. Also, a “yes” vote on the issue does not preclude civil unions or stop the Legislature from enacting future legislation on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) unions, but it would give a clear definition of marriage.”
So what’s the problem? Darrell’s collecting a paycheck funded largely by the Catholic Church–indeed, one of the three lead stories in the Strib’s Morning Hot Dish political newsletter was Minnesota Catholics asked to pay for marriage vote TV ads.
You have to wonder what His Grace thinks of Mr. Darrell’s seeming push for civil unions. Will he allow him to continue this ruse? I know the Charming Mr. Darrell assumes all Vote No supporters are godless heathens, but I do remember my Sunday School teacher calling that whole “do not bear false witness” thing not as recommendation, but a commandment.
So, do you believe that, after spending all this money, His Grace will simply sit back and let civil unions happen? Keep Dreaming.
Minnesotans, keep the conversations going. Do not believe the Civil Unions Ruse. This November, there is only one vote for fairness. And that vote is No.
Question to Minnesota’s reporters:
Who will be the first to ask the Archbishop why he is asking Catholics across the state to fund a campaign that is pushing the notion of civil unions, something the Church opposes just as vehemently as marriage? Any takers?
From this morning’s Star Tribune we learn that All the Archbishop’s Men have taken the “unusual” step of sending a mailing to more than 400,000 Catholics in Minnesota. In Catholics asked to pay for marriage vote ads,Rose French reports:
All the Archbishops Men: Help us Pay for Ads to Scare Your Kids (Photo Star Tribune)
In trying to reach every Catholic household in Minnesota, the mailing is “unusual” compared to Catholics’ roles in marriage amendment campaigns in other states, said John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron (Ohio), who studies politics and religion.
“I can’t think of anything as direct and as explicit,” Green said. “I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it legally, but certainly I’m sure it’s very controversial. Catholic leaders have been involved in fundraising. I know of examples where they have reached out to parishioners, but I’ve never heard of anything quite this comprehensive.”
Besides asking Catholics to make contributions, bishops are encouraging them to vote yes on the amendment, according to a letter sent to priests and church administrators last week from Jason Adkins, executive director of Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in the state.
The mailing “gives Catholics an opportunity to support the passage of the amendment and asks them to send a contribution to where it will be most effective,” Adkins’ letter states. In an interview Monday, Adkins said the mailing is being coordinated and paid for by his group and will cost close to $100,000.
Church helps finance drive
So far this year, Catholic leadership has been one of the biggest financial backers of pro-amendment forces, directing close to $500,000 in support of it, according to campaign finance records. The Minnesota Catholic Conference said it reported raising $750,000 in 2011. Much of that came in a $650,000 contribution from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, which tapped its investments to help fund the marriage amendment campaign.
So what will Catholics be paying for?
I imagine Catholics thinking about heeding His Grace’s plea for cash may want to consider what they’ll be paying for.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Vote Yes will, in the final weeks of the campaign, seek to scare the bejesus out of parents. Preying on parent’s fears that they will lose control over the values their children learn, past campaigns (all run by the same campaign manager) have painted a world where children are taught about boys marrying boys before they are ready to grasp these adult concepts. Probably the most famous of these past, successful attempts was California’s Prop 8 “Princess” ad:
This ad was incredibly effective for two reasons – it put a seed of doubt with soft supporters of the No on Prop 8 campaign, especially families with young children. Secondly, the No on 8’s in-fighting and lack of resources meant that the ad was on the air for two weeks without a response, a deadly combination.
In Minnesota, we will have the resources to respond, but we should all think hard about the first problem, about the uncertainty the Vote on Yes campaign will seek to insert into parents’ minds about a world where they’ve lost control over what their kids learn and when they learn it.
What they’ve successfully accomplished in California, Maine, and elsewhere, is feed parental anxiety about uncomfortable subjects and helps people forget that kids learning about love in the home is not the equivalent of having a birds and the bees conversation before you’re ready. As Kim and John, the couple in Minnesotans United for All Families’ first TV ad, say, “In our daughter’s world, her normal is so different than ours. It didn’t faze her at all.”
One of my favorite viral youtube videos is of a kid learning about a gay couple being married:
“So that means you love each other.” Exactly – something so simple even a kid can understand (and explain) it.
Minnesotans for Marriage: Using Kids to Argue that Voting No Will Hurt Kids
Yesterday I asked, wouldn’t it be ironic if the Vote Yes side – which is seeking to “protect” kids, went out of the way to put children in the middle of the very political debate our state is having right now? I reprinted the letter of Jenny, a mother whose four year-old came home from a Christian daycare with a Vote Yes letter tucked away in his backpack.
City ordinance doesn’t address it, state law allows it, and the IRS doesn’t appear to restrict it.
The First Amendment, however, protects it.
But that isn’t keeping a number of locals from voicing their disapproval for signs that showed up in front of a Catholic grade school over the weekend. The Faribault Daily News Facebook page has been flooded with messages from one side or the other since one resident posed the question Sunday evening.
Liz Fritz saw the signs on her way to work Saturday morning. The signs, placed in front of Divine Mercy Catholic School on Third Avenue, promote voting for a statewide ballot question that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The signs tell people to “vote yes” and that marriage is between “one man, one woman.”
“I felt betrayed,” Fritz said. “I went to school there and I know how hard it is to be a third-grader and be told you’re supposed to marry a man but know that that’s not what you’re feeling or thinking. I know how it feels to be different and it just hurts to know the kids going there now are going to be even more reminded of that.”
But Associate Pastor and Assistant School Principal the Rev. Erik Lundgren says the decision to put up the signs wasn’t one taken lightly. A group of local marriage amendment supporters from the parish asked to put the signs up and, since the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has pushed for support of the campaign, school and church officials said yes.
“Being a Catholic is really about living out your faith and we take political decisions very seriously,” Lundgren said. “We are asked to not just shape ourselves but shape the world.”
Fritz’s post spurred debate — by Monday morning more than 50 people had given their input on the issue on the paper’s Facebook page. The discussion jumped from whether or not the signs should be allowed in front of the school to opinions on religion and the ballot question itself.
More Kid Fearmongering From Dear Dear State Representative Mary Franson
Franson also expressed concern that if the marriage amendment is defeated, Minnesota’s public schools might follow Massachusetts’ alleged practice of indoctrinating students to (gasp!) accept homosexuality as
something normal. . . .
At this point we might be reminded that All the Archbishop’s Men and Minnesotans for Marriage insist that marriage must be held sacred. The Archdiocese has said marriage must be “protected” because:
In civil society, marriage’s essential public purpose is about providing kids with what they need — both a mom and a dad. Marriage is a reality that unites a man and a woman and any children born from their union. While there are many types of loving relationships, marriage is more.
At this point we might also ponder the fact that Representative Franson is twice divorced–and, therefore, a single mom. Of course, ever so good at playing the victim, I’m sure she and her chorus will howl, “That’s bullying! How dare you bring her family into this?”
Only we are allowed to judge others, to call some marriages more and some less.
While Archbishop Nienstedt and the Catholic Church are the principal funders of the Vote Yes campaign to limit the freedom to marry in Minnesota, we know other denominations are happy to follow his lead, insisting on putting their particular reading of Scripture and feelings about same-sex marriage into our State’s Constitution.
We also know from past successful efforts to pass similar amendments that our opponents use a deliberate strategy of creating fear among parents about what their kids will learn in school if the amendment doesn’t pass. They prey on parent’s fears that kids will learn about difficult topics in school rather than in the home, that they won’t be able to control how their children learn values.
All the Archbishop’s Men: Can they Agree to Not Use Children as Political Footballs and Unwilling Messengers? (Photo Pioneer Press)
So it would seem a little hypocritical of a Vote Yes campaign to move a political message through four year-olds, don’t you think? Well that seems to be exactly what is happening in at least one Minnesota pre-school.
On Facebook this morning, I saw a beautiful letter written by Jenny, a mother angry that her four year-old son was sent home from pre-school with what is essentially campaign material for the effort to pass an amendment to Minnesota’s Constitution to limit the freedom to marry. Jenny’s facebook post, reprinted here with her permission, read:
My 4 year-old son came home from preschool with a ‘Vote Yes’ letter in his backpack. This was my response to this horrifying letter.
Dear Pastor [redacted]
I am writing this letter to you to inform you why I will be removing my child, _____, from your church’s preschool. I was shocked and appalled that you used my 4-year old’s backpack to send a message home defending the Minnesota Marriage amendment, and I cannot justify financially contributing to a community that is going to use that money against people I love and people my son loves. You see, Pastor ___, my 4-year old is loved and cherished by his two lesbian aunts that have known him and supported him since his birth. My sister and her partner have been in a committed relationship for over 12 years, and ____ will have the wonderful opportunity to support them at their wedding next October.
I am aware that you are well within your rights to promote this teaching about marriage, just like the vast majority of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues in Minnesota are well within their rights to promote inclusivity, embrace God’s diverse creation, and support loving and committed couples by working to defeat this marriage amendment. But you need to know that no matter how many letters you write you will never be able to convince my son that his aunts and their future children are not a real family, for his experience contradicts everything that you wrote in your letter.
Your letter was offensive to an entire group of people that are not seeking to change marriage, they are seeking to join marriage—the lifelong commitment that strengthens all societies. Not only was your letter offensive, but it severely lacked any coherent argument. Claiming to not tell people how to vote and then claiming to simply present God’s view on the matter is lazy rhetoric that does not persuade thinking people. Your selective inattention to the biblical text was frightening. If we are going to talk about the biblical view(s) of marriage, then at least be honest and address polygamy, Levirate marriage, Deuteronomic law of the captive bride, bride prices, dowries, etc. Certainly using a passage about outlawing divorce (Matt 19) and claiming that it is evidence that God does not support same-sex marriage is disingenuous at best and insulting at worst. Did you really think that no one would look it up? But even more than all of this, using the backpacks of 4-year olds to spread your personal, unsophisticated, and selective interpretation of the Bible, in a vain attempt to amend the constitution to exclude human beings who are created in the image of God, is totally and completely inappropriate.
Jenny: “This does not belong in my 4 year-old’s backpack.”
I encourage you to revisit the overwhelming message of acceptance and love found in the vast majority of the Old Testament and the New Testament—passages that champion inclusiveness (Acts 10; Gen 1:26) not exclusiveness. You are not alone; pastors and priests throughout history have used the Bible to justify all sorts of things that we now find appalling like the subordination of women, slavery, and segregation. Simply claiming to be on God’s side does not mean that you are. Blaise Pascal reminds us that “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.” I would ask that you pray about Christ’s message of loving God and loving one’s neighbor and ask yourself how you are loving your LGBT neighbors and their families.
Whether you realize it or not, your words stifle an ongoing struggle for equal rights—a struggle that will not only eventually be won, but one that will soon be understood and remembered as an extension of other successful “against the current” movements, such as the fight for women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement. I am not expecting to change your mind with this letter, and as I have said earlier, you are well within your right as a religious institution to spread and teach your faith. Although I find your message offensive, appalling, and ultimately non-Christian, I believe in your constitutional right to express it. I am voting NO on this amendment in November because I don’t only support your freedom, I support my sister’s freedom too.
Sincerely,
Jenny [redacted]
P.S. I will also be sending this letter to the parents in ___’s class so that they know why[he] will no longer be attending ___ pre-school.
I’ve redacted the child’s and Pastor’s names and used only the mother’s first name. Knowing M4M’s propensity to play the victim,I don’t want her or this blog to be accused of inciting animosity toward the pastor, even though his poor judgment I hope leads more parents from that school to have respectful but direct conversations with him.
There’s nothing I can add to Jenny’s eloquent letter, except perhaps some questions to our opponents: Can we all agree that using children as unwitting political footballs is unwise? If we believe that children should learn their values in the home, should that not be true of all sides on this volatile issue in this political season?
In short, can you promise not to stuff propaganda into 4 year-olds’ backpacks?
Sunday’s release of the Star Tribune poll tells us what we’ve known for a long time about the effort to defeat the amendment to limit the freedom to marry in Minnesota: it’s going to be close. 49% support the amendment, 47% oppose, within the margin of error of the poll and in recount territory.
However, the numbers that should frighten supporters of the Vote No campaign are those to a second question the Minnesota Poll asked, “If same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, do you support or oppose allowing civil unions that would grant the same legal status as marriage?” Respondents said:
STATE
MEN
WOMEN
DEMS
REPS
IND
“YES”
“NO”
SUPPORT
68%
65%
72%
79%
55%
66%
50%
91%
OPPOSE
23%
25%
20%
11%
34%
27%
41%
4%
UNDECIDED
9%
10%
8%
10%
11%
6%
9%
5%
Why should it worry us? After all, it shows that Minnesotans across the political spectrum are fair-minded and want people to share in equality. Even 50% of respondents planning to vote “yes” agreed with civil unions, as did 55% of Republicans.
The reason it should worry us because we know from other states that our opponents use this strong belief in fairness as a ruse to fool voters into thinking they can both be fair and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
Don’t believe me? Check out this ad, one of the closing arguments the Vote Yes on Question 1 Campaign used in the 2009 referendum that put a ban on same-sex marriage into that state’s Constitution:
Why is this on the ballot? Was Minnesota clamoring for it? No. Ideology was behind it, and money was behind it. And the same forces that aligned to put this ban on same-sex marriage into our Constitution are just as adamantly opposed to civil unions.
The ideology of cultural conservatives in the Republican Party led Tim Pawlenty to reject contracts for state employees that included domestic partner benefits, something the Administration of Jesse Ventura had enacted. When he vetoed a bill that would have granted same-sex partners the right to make end-of-life decisions for their loved ones, Governor Pawlenty said: “Marriage — defined as between a man and woman — should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.”
Have those Republicans changed? Not a bit. If anything, they are more conservative, having run the few moderates in their party out on a rail. We’ve seen this in recent contract negotiations with state employees, where the same cultural conservatives in the GOP who put the amendment on the ballot howled at the prospect of the Dayton Administration offering domestic partner benefits in negotiations.
And now on to money—who was behind the effort to put the amendment on the ballot and who is funding the campaign to win its passage? As has been reported by MPR and others, “The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is the single largest contributor to the vote yes campaign.”
So what does the Most Reverend John Neinstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis—and the principal funder of the Vote Yes campaign—think of civil unions? According to a question and answer helpfully provided by the Archdiocese website, he’s not too fond of those either:
Some people say that they are not for redefining marriage, but they have no problem with civil unions. Is there a distinction between the two, with regard to the Church’s position?
Civil unions, in my opinion, are just a smoke screen for so-called same-sex “marriage.” In fact, so-called “marriage equality” groups have already begun opposing them, and in states where civil unions exist, such as in Washington, New Jersey and California, the movement to redefine marriage simply accelerates. There are ways of ensuring that people of the same gender have access to certain public services or privileges without redefining marriage. By contrast, civil unions are, if you will, the nose of the camel coming under the tent
All the Archbishop’s Men Also Oppose Civil Unions (Photo, Pioneer Press)
He who fears camels poking under tents will oppose civil unions with the same viciousness that his divided his flock in Minnesota. And, if the Minnesotans for Marriage campaign puts out an ad such as the one we saw in Maine, the His Grace and His Flock will have funded a lie.
Minnesotans are Fair: Keep Those Conversations Going
If you know fair-minded people who might be among those represented by the poll numbers above – people uncomfortable with the idea of “marriage” but ok with civil unions – talk to them. Tell them that a yes vote will make civil unions politically difficult to impossible for years to come. There will be little political will to move a rights agenda, and, as we saw above, the same forces that put this on the ballot will only be emboldened and oppose those moves as well.
The silver lining in all of this: What these poll numbers show us is that Minnesotans are conflicted. These are not people blinded by bigotry. They want to do the right thing, and that is a good thing. Our job between now and November is to let people know that there is only one vote to make for fairness, and that is a No Vote.
One of the homeowners whose sign was vandalized said, “I know there are good folks on the other side of this issue. And it’s unfortunate that a few wreck it for them.”
Vote No Sign in Bloomington (Photo by CBS)
Asked for comment, the Kate Brickman of Minnesotans United for All Families said, “Whether you’re supporting the amendment or opposing the amendment, we should really make sure we’re engaging in respectful conversations and not resort to any actions like this.”
Nice, right? We might disagree, but let’s respect each other.
So what did the other side say? Chuck Darrell — the same M4M spokesman who declared Vote No supporters godless heathens, said: “Hopefully the signs are the least of our causalities out there.”
Seriously, Chuck? Casualties? First, you call run-of-the-mill voter outreach “stalking,” and now you’re suggesting — what? That our side wants to kill you?
“In civil society, marriage’s essential public purpose is about providing kids with what they need — both a mom and a dad. Marriage is a reality that unites a man and a woman and any children born from their union. While there are many types of loving relationships, marriage is more.”
Got that, single parents? Got that, people who marry later in life, or who decide not to have children? Got that, people who would love children but are physically unable? Got that, people who adopt children? Your marriages are less.
But careful pointing that out to our friends at Minnesotans for Meddling in Other People’s Marriages. They’re allowed to judge you. They put this harmful amendment on the ballot. They are judging not just gay people but anyone in any family that doesn’t look like Leave it to Beaver. But they’re allowed to do that.
Because they’re the real victims here.
UPDATE:
A friend shared this fundraising letter he received from the Bishop of Winona, the Most Reverend John M. Quinn. His letter states “Marriage is unique and is unlike any other relationship or friendship, because it is from the union of a husband and a wife, come children.”
His Excellency raises money by judging your marriage.
Your marriage may be less if you do not have children, but at least know that your godless union does serve a purpose: The Most Reverend John Quinn can raise a little money off of his judgement of you.
Chuck Darrell, Communications Director for the campaign to amend Minnesota’s constitution to limit the freedom to marry, had this to say to the Pioneer Press about the role faith will play in the November vote:
“There should be very little doubt that the vast majority of churches with members will support the amendment. And the marriage amendment campaign focused on turning them out. Amendment opponents will have to find a whole lot of atheists if they want (to) win.”
Yes, you read that right, Vote No Supporters. You’re all a bunch of godless heathens.
Wow. This is quite the first shot across the bow. Fasten your seat belts everyone – we haven’t even yet seen the TV ads aimed at scaring the bejeezus out of parents, trying to con them into thinking that if they vote no their kids will suddenly be forced to attend cross-dressing “genderless marriage” lessons in school.
All the Archbishop’s Men. (Photo Credit, Pioneer Press)
The article that quotes the charming Mr. Darrell followed Tuesday’s press conference Minnesota for Marriage (M4M) featuring Archbishop Neinstedt and a Whole Lot of Men. (Seriously, the images were downright creepy – where my ladies at?)
I know it’s not a biblical saying, Your Grace, but surely you’ve heard the one about the concrete to hell being poured with the kindest of sentiments?
No, they Don’t Own God andReligion
Really, I think Vote No supporters can take some solace in yesterday’s performance of All The Archbishop’s Men. You see it, and Mr. Darrell’s subsequent offensiveness, were inherently defensive.
You see, the campaign to defeat the Amendment in Minnesota has done what no other campaign on our side has done before: engage in aggressive organizing in faith communities. As the campaign pointed out in response to Mr. Darrell, the coalition to defeat the freedom-limiting Amendment includes 118 Churches and religious communities; the Episcopal Church in Minnesota; Catholics for Marriage Equality; the Minnesota Rabbinical Association; 404 members of Clergy United for All Families; five synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; the Minnesota United Methodist Conference; the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area; and, yes… also atheists.
Clergy United for All Families
The kickoff press conference of Clergy United for All Families was attended by over 100 clergy. Check out the picture of that press conference for a study in contrasts.
That is what All the Archbishop’s Men was responding to – the fact that the Vote No campaign has boldly and aggressively stated that their side does not own God and does not own religion.
The Unbearable Victimhood of Vote Yes
It seems that the fact that M4M has far fewer public and media events than Minnesotans United, whenever they do send out even the thinnest of press releases all of the press corp rush to cover them. That’s the only explanation I can find for the coverage they received this week for absurdly claiming that Minnesotans United is “stalking” Vote Yes supporters.
How are we “stalking” people? We’re using today’s technology (heard of Facebook?) to help supporters reach out to their friends and family and have conversations with them about marriage and the amendment. It’s a tool used by other campaigns, including Obama for America. It’s the modern day version of the traditional phonebank or doorknock. It’s voters talking to voters. In other words, it’s what campaigns do. But they call it “stalking.”
Huh?
If you follow M4M on Facebook or Twitter, you’ll notice a familiar ring to this insipidness. M4M sure spends a lot of time talking about how victimized they are. Even though they are seeking to put their particular reading of Scripture into our state Constitution, it is their religious freedom that is being infringed upon. Even as they push the lie that children in gay families are psychologically damaged, they are being oppressed!
Any time any random person at the state fair looked at an amendment supporter, their campaign spokesman Andy Parrish would breathlessly tweet his horror. People are being mean to us!
Get used to it, folks. As a very smart friend said recently, “Every time a leaf falls on one of them, we’re going to see a press release about it.”
Because remember – they chose to put this divisive amendment on the ballot. They chose to divide our state and focus other people’s marriages. This week, they declare Vote No supporters to be godless heathens. But, really – theyare the victims.
Minnesota will not fall for it
The Archbishop and His Men must have been annoyed that their press day was stepped on. You see, Minnesotans United for All Families released its first television ad the morning of their Capitol press conference. The ad features Kim and John, a couple from Savage, Minnesota who are straight, Catholic, and Republican. And they’re Voting No. Watch:
Our state and our culture are in the middle of a conversation about the meaning of marriage. Proponents of this amendment want to stop that conversation. I believe with all my heart, that if we do the work we need to do in the coming weeks Minnesotans will not stop the conversation about marriage.
Thug In Pastels 