Religious right urges anti-gay marriage amendment vote, Dayton vows to fight it
Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 10:09 am
- 11 Comments
Religious right groups praised the House Rules Committee vote on Wednesday morning to pass an amendment that would codify a gay marriage ban in the Minnesota Constitution, but also called for action against “gay activists” who would “assault,” “attack” or “take one last shot” at Republican legislators. While conservative Christians rally the troops for a possible vote on the House floor this afternoon, Gov. Mark Dayton said he’d fight it “with every fiber of my being.”
The New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage urged its supporters to rally at the Minnesota Capitol.
“Gay marriage advocates are mounting a furious last-minute assault on Republican legislators in an effort to cow them into delaying the vote authorizing the marriage amendment until sometime next year,” wrote the group’s executive director. “They are rallying supporters all around the country to contact Minnesota legislators asking them to stop the marriage amendment.”
Tony Perkins of the Washington, D.C.–based Family Research Council, an organization recently dubbed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law center, sent an alert out as well:
The people of Minnesota deserve a full and open debate to decide the future of marriage. The only ones served by putting this vote off are gay marriage advocates, not Minnesota voters or Minnesota families.
As we speak, your state Representative is under attack by those opposed to allowing your voice to be heard. This bill is a direct threat to powerful interest groups, the small number of lawmakers who listen to them and the even smaller number of judges who are willing to foist a new definition of marriage on Minnesota.
The Catholic Defense League of Minnesota wrote about LGBT advocates “taking one last shot” at legislators:
Those of us who believe that the destruction of marriage is not only immoral but also extremely destructive of the social fabric of our country, have watched with hopeful anticipation as the bill wound its way through the legislature.
On Thursday, May 19 (tomorrow as I write this), the Minnesota House will likely take up the bill. Opposition forces such as Out Front Minnesota will be there to try to “take one last shot” at the legislators.
We have an opportunity, while investing minimal time, to fight back. As the legislators convene at the House chambers, there will be opposition forces there to try to intimidate them.
A vote on the amendment is expected on the House floor on Thursday afternoon. And LBGT advocates are planning a 2:30 rally at the Capitol to coincide with the vote.
Following a House committee vote on Wednesday to send the bill to the House floor, Gov. Dayton told reporters he would fight it “with every fiber of my being.”
Dayton has no power to veto the amendment, but he does have the bully pulpit.
“I think Minnesotans have much more compassion and understanding than they recognize and I think it will be defeated next year,” he said.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter11 Comments
Comment posted May 19, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Why are non-Minnesotans, avowed religio-celebites and religious extremists given a pass by moderate conservatives on this attempt at forced social engineering? This isn’t a conservative amendment, it’s social control of the most private kind. Please remember, weakening the first clause of the First Amendment makes churches more vulnerable to a reactive citizenry. Be careful what you pray for Theocrats.
Praise Jebus, God hates a two way street with no traffic laws, Amen.
Comment posted May 19, 2011 @ 10:45 am
Tony Perkins: keep your filthy, slimy politics out of Minnesota. Oh, by the way, can you please name the “even smaller number of judges who are willing to foist a new definition of marriage on Minnesota”? I didn’t think so.
Comment posted May 19, 2011 @ 10:54 am
“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,” { he said,} “unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now” { he insisted}. “To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
So what godless liberal do you suppose uttered these words?
None other than the “Godfather of Conservatism”, Barry Goldwater.
Comment posted May 19, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
All 40 fundies were there today, compared to about a thousand regular Minnesotans.
Comment posted May 20, 2011 @ 1:43 am
Freedom of religion is the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, NOT to use the government to force that religion on other people. My church embraces same sex unions, so their freedom to marry who they wish would also be impacted by this ban. If you don’t like same sex marriage, if your religion and your beliefs don’t, don’t marry someone of the same sex. But denying freedom doesn’t give you more freedom for yourself. In fact denying freedom harms us all!
Comment posted May 20, 2011 @ 7:18 am
well MN residents – its up to you…..do you allow the Right Wing Wackjobs dictate THEIR Religion on Your State? Hey they’ve already have Hampered WOMEN’s Health Issues in Numerous states…that’s right ladies…..keep giving them a pass, and YOUR RIGHTS as WOMEN WILL SUFFER…..why do you allow MEN to tell you what you can and can’t do with your own bodies? Let them pass this this ammendment, and Ladies – YOU’RE NEXT! The RIGHTS of your daughters, grand-daughters ARE UNDER ASSAULT by the GOP and thier Right Wing American Taliban Fringe!!!! LGBT people are ONLY the beginning…..THINK people THINK!
Comment posted May 20, 2011 @ 3:01 pm
Marriage, once again, is not a human right, a civil right, or any other concoctiion you wish to attribute to it. It is the union of one man and one woman. It’s been that way for 2000 years and more and even if you believe in evolution the animals knew how to procreate – an inate and natural phenomena – one male, one female = a child. That is the core unit of the family and the structure of society. This farse you people call same-sex marriage is just that a farse. It’s a foolish fantasy that man on man or woman on woman is marriage. It’s not – it’s mush. And all your ragging on religion doesn’t change that fact. People whether they are divorced or not can still respect the core foundation of society. Marriage between a man and a woman is good for children. Anything else is pure delusion, farcical and wishful thinking.
Our Constitution wasn’t meant to provide same-sex marriage under any Amendment and the founders would have been appauled at the inference. Get a life.
Comment posted May 22, 2011 @ 12:25 am
Five months on hate, divisiveness, greed and discrimination. Two days on the budget.
Comment posted May 23, 2011 @ 3:36 pm
@Mudrose. Marriage is much older than the birth of Christ. It predates Christianity and even Judaism. No where in the laws of society is there a mandate that childbirth is a requirement of marriage. Future procreation is NOT a mandate of marriage.
You reference the Constitution. The Constitution does not contain a word on marriage. The Constitution also does not provide a word on the internet, helmet laws, and a whole host of other instances where individual freedoms may be concerned.
Your religious leaders say that same-sex marriages are wrong so you take your beliefs to the legislature to ensure that they are upheld and forced upon those that don’t believe them. I suppose if enough people got together we could make it illegal to eat meat on Fridays, work on Sundays, and consume pork for any reason. These are your beliefs, but should they be forced on others? It’s very un-Christian of Christians to force others to observe their beliefs. Shouldn’t you be teaching others of your faith and leading by example so that we may CHOOSE to follow your beliefs rather than forced into them? Think of your answer very, very carefully. One answer is freedom, the other is the same path to women wearing Burkas.
Comment posted May 23, 2011 @ 10:38 pm
People who affirm human compassion, advocate for human rights, and seek justice, must never make the mistake of confusing a legal or majority right with a moral right. The forced removal of Native Americans from their land and onto reservations was legal. The importation and sale of African slaves was legal. South African apartheid was legal. The confiscation of the property of Jews at the beginning of the Nazi regime was legal. The Spanish Inquisition was legal. Crucifying Jesus was legal and approved by the people. Burning Michael Servetus at the stake for his nitarian theology was legal.
In this country slavery was legal. Forbidding interracial marriage was legal. Women were property of their husbands were legal. Women could not vote was legal. Alcohol was illegal for 13 years. However none of these legal items were morally right. The rich and powerful have always used the legal system to oppress the powerless.
As citizens we should respect the rule of law. More importantly, though, our duty is to create laws founded on our highest sense of justice, equity, and compassion. Loud voices and false propaganda should not urge us to choose fear, denial, reactionary nationalism, racism and homophobia. We must choose the path of compassion and hope. We must choose a path that is founded on the recognition that we are connected, that we are all in this together and to respect and celebrate the human worth and dignity in each and everyone of else.
Adapted from: —{Rev. Peter Morales, Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) President, excerpted from his essay in “A People So Bold”} and modified by Terry Schneider for this comment segment.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
