Thursday, March 16, 2006


My Take on Katherine Kersten

I want to walk right up to the woman, grab her firmly by the shoulders, shake her vigorously, and ask loudly and in an agitated voice "Are you serious? Or are you just absolutely out of your gourd?!"

There's a huge hole in her.....argument? I'm not sure it can be called that. There's a huge hole in her latest screed - no one's trying to change Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act. No lawsuits pending. None. Zero. Perhaps proponents of a constitutional ban on gay marriage are so vehement because they know the current DOMA IS unconstitutional since it proscribes certain freedoms, equal protection clauses, things like that. But that's another, perhaps longer post.

So for Kersten's fire-and-brimstone proclamation of gay marriage being miraculously allowed leading to polygamy (seriously. She wrote this, and the Star Tribune published it.), somehow the law would have to disappear.....without a lawsuit! It's those damned uppity gays and their friends at Out Front and NARAL! Don't forget those fags are baby-killers too! Let's light up a crucifix on the lawn while we're at it! Defend states' marriage!

See my previous post for links to information on the way our court system works. Until then, Ms. Kersten, I'm hope your columns make their deadlines, satisfy your editors, give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of righteous vindication, and help you support your family.

You're still an idiot.

Blogger lavndrblue said:
Why hasn't anyone challenged the DOMA like Outfront Minnesota? I would think that the GLBT community would go after this. Nebraska even had their DOMA law thrown out because it was deemed unconstitutional. Any insights?
Blogger MN Campaign Report said:
It's a good question. I don't have a good answer for that one....anyone from the GLBT community or OutFront itself?
Blogger Ag said:
I would guess (and I think this is pretty clear) that they are not doing this because they learned their lesson in 04, and by winning in Mass (and other places), they lost nationally.

They are smart enough to bide their time and wait for the hate filled folks to show just how crazy they are. If they try to bring a case, they would win that battle, but it would just make the crazies crazier and possibly make the war more difficult to win.
Blogger MN Liberal said:
I think many in the GLBT community feel that the time is not ripe to challenge this and that doing so would create a public backlash. They only need to look at what ensued after Massachusetts as proof. It does create a backlash. See the numerous states that have now passed constitutional amendments.

The irony here is that by pursuing this amendment, anti-gay-marriage folks are probably pushing proponents to challenge this in federal court. If Minnesota passes a state constitutional amendment, only two ways exist to challenge it: (1) revoke the amendment (highly, highly unlikely) or (2) have it declared unconstitutional under the federal constitution. Granted, the current U.S. Supreme Court is not the most progressive, but it did issue the Lawrence decision stating that anti-sodomy laws cannot discriminate. (In other words, a state cannot make sodomy illegal between men, but probably can outlaw all sodomy.)

Kersten's argument is flawed. Anti-poligamy laws are not discriminatory - NO ONE can have more than one legal spouse, whether they are straight, gay, or bisexual. Current marriage laws, however, are discriminatory - it prevents same-sex couples from entering a legal relationship currently recognized only for opposite-sex couples. And the counterargument - that gays can marry members of the opposite sex - is simply ridiculous: I, as a heterosexual, can legally marry the person I am most attracted to (with the exception of my closest relatives, and for good health reasons). Same-sex couples cannot.

I find the "save traditional marriage" argument entertaining. One definition of "tradition" is "a mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation." Our current system of marriage is anything but "traditional." If it where, (1) a wife's family would still be required to pay a dowry; (2) a wife would be considered the legal property of her husband; (3) a husband would have unilateral power to effect a divorce; and (4) interracial marriages would be illegal. All of these elements, at one point, consistuted "traditional" marriage. Especially with interracial marriage, "traditional" marriage proponents predicted the breakdown of marriage. But the sky did not fall. And it will not fall if society recognizes some legal equivalent for same-sex couples.
Blogger MN Liberal said:
ag is absolutely correct. Younger people are much more supportive of same-sex marriage.

Why do you think conservatives continually go after public education? Because they realize that if they can instill conservative values in more young people, the trend exemplified by the Pew Forum will reverse.
Blogger MN Campaign Report said:
My particular favorite piece of the argument is the bit about how "the BIBLE SAYS MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN."

Well, the Bible also relates the story of Joseph and his mother, who was favored above all Jacob's other wives. Are we to take this to mean that the Holy Bible says that polygamy should be revered because a great father of Israel did it? Of course not. Without context, even the Bible loses its meaning and value.

One need only to look to the example Massachusetts has laid at our feet to see that indeed, the sky has not fallen on society. In fact, they seem to be doing pretty well with it.
Blogger reslez said:
Why is it that every time I visit the Strib website this woman's apalling hate-filled screeds are prominently featured on the main page? I am honestly disgusted with culture warrior Kersten and her ilk. As far as I can tell she and her cohort of witchhunters spend all their time fighting tooth, claw and nail to impose their personal moral and religious codes on everyone else. Meanwhile, they completely ignore anything that would actually make a positive difference in people's lives. Education? Health care reform? Ye shall know them by their fruits.

"Ignorance of our founding principles can endanger us all," she writes. Last time I checked our founding principles included liberty and freedom from religious tyranny.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?