While state Republicans are spearheading the contentious move to put a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage on the ballot next year, not all conservatives are behind them. In recent weeks, a number of conservatives — ranging from small-government and libertarian groups to gay Republicans — have spoken out against codification of marriage laws within the Minnesota Constitution. Some say the amendment is contrary to liberty, while others have taken on social conservative groups such as the Minnesota Family Council.

Minnesotans for Limited Government is a conservative political action committee that favors smaller government and supports Ron Paul for president. It came out against the GOP-backed anti–gay marriage amendment this week.

“It has always been the stance of MNLG that marriage is a sacrament, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the state. We do not approve of any amendment or legislation that further seeks to define Marriage, because it is an infringement on two ideas,” wrote the group’s chair, Jake Barnett. “First, it reinforces the idea that the Government has the right to treat certain individuals differently than others, and second, it further removes Marriage from its original jurisdiction as a sacrament of faith.”

Barnett said that MNLG believes the state should not be involved with religious marriage.

“Under our policy, both heterosexual and homosexual couples could have their unions recognized by the state, but could not call their union a Marriage unless they sought the blessing of a Church. We do not believe any Church should be compelled to marry same-sex couples, but at the same time we respect the rights of Churches to do so if they choose.”

LGBT conservatives have also found the amendment problematic. The Minnesota Log Cabin Republicans are lobbying aggressively against the measure.

“In 2010, Log Cabin Republicans celebrated when the GOP took control of the Minnesota House and Senate. We looked forward to Republican legislators obeying a voter mandate to put a laser focus on the out-of-control spending at the State Capitol. It is deeply disappointing to see members of our party turn away from that mission in favor of a divisive social agenda,” Ken Smoron, Log Cabin’s vice president, said in a statement. “At a time when job creation, the economy, taxes, and the state’s budget are of utmost concern for Minnesota families and businesses, the proposed amendment is anti-liberty, anti-family, and a distraction that Minnesota just can’t afford.”

He added, “If we want to be more than a one-term majority we must focus on the issues that unite us as Republicans and Minnesotans. The days of using the lives of gay and lesbian Americans as a political wedge issue are over.”

The Libertarian Party of Minnesota held an “unusual” special meeting on May 7 to deliberate on the amendment. Party officials there unanimously condemned the marriage amendment.

“The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals,” the party wrote. “We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve.”

It added, “We also oppose any attempt to place a marriage ban before voters, as the trappings of democracy do not legitimize infringements upon personal liberty; a 51 percent majority does not have the right to force its will upon the other 49 percent. We instead support a free society, where 1% can still be free to live their own lives as they choose, even if 99% might disapprove.”

The party also said it supports the repeal of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which bars same-sex couples from marrying.

The party’s vice chair, S.L. Mallek, appeared on the Late Debate, a conservative talk radio show in the northern Twin Cities suburbs.

“It’s about having parents that care about the child, not the gender of these parents,” Mallek said.

The Late Debate is hosted by Jack Tomczak, who has worked for Rep. Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer, and Ben Kruse, a designer and media consultant who’s done work for a number of Republican campaigns.

Kruse agreed with Mallek. “I think if this passes, in 20 years, it will be repealed. I think Republicans will be on the wrong side of history on this one.”

Mallek added, “Government trying to legislate personal relationships… that’s not pro-liberty.”

In a separate episode of the Late Debate, Kruse and the Minnesota Family Council’s Tom Prichard engaged in a heated debate on the conservative principles regarding support or opposition to same-sex marriage.

“What it boils down to: Straight marriage isn’t very good,” Kruse said. “So why are we trying to exclude people who haven’t been given the opportunity to prove they can be very good parents.”

He said the gay marriage debate “distracts us from the parenting problem in this country.”

Listen to the debate between Kruse and Prichard:

Some Republicans have come out in support of same-sex marriage in recent months as well. Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, recently told the press that he opposes the amendment. “I look at it as: We are all equal,” he said.

Marriage equality seems to be an issue that is drawing GOP supporters elsewhere, too. Longtime GOP donors are starting to back efforts to make same-sex marriage legal in New York, with GOP contributors like Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Paul E. Singer, described by the New York Times as “one of the most generous Republican donors in the country,” kicking in funds.

“I think it is important in particular for Republicans to know this is a bipartisan issue,” Republican donor Daniel S. Loeb told Times. “If they’re Republican, they will not be abandoned by the party for supporting this. On the contrary, I think they will find that there is a whole new world of people who will support them on an ongoing basis if they support this cause.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is demanding that the Northfield School District stop filtering LGBT internet content on the district’s computers. Calling it unconstitutional, the group sent a letter to the district calling for a halt to the filtering as well as a data practices request to identify how the filters got put into place. The move is part of the ACLU’s broader “Don’t Filter Me” project to prevent filtering of LGBT content.

”LGBT youth face a lot of challenges growing up in today’s society. The websites that are being filtered by Northfield are important resources for LGBT teens to go to for support and help, it is unfortunate that they would block these sites,” said ACLU-MN attorney Teresa Nelson in a statement.

The ACLU received a tip from Northfield students that the computers were filtering LGBT resources. Northfield uses a software called Lightspeed which contains a filter called “education.lifestyles” defined as “Education about lifestyles — gay, lesbian, alternate.”

Already the campaign has been successful in getting those filters removed from a Kansas City school district, and the ACLU has identified filters in Virginia, Ohio and New Jersey.

“There is no legitimate reason why any public school should be using an anti-LGBT filter,” Joshua Block of the ACLU LGBT Project said. “This is not a case where overbroad filters are accidentally filtering out LGBT websites. These filters are designed to discriminate and are programmed specifically to target LGBT-related content that would not otherwise be blocked as sexually explicit or inappropriate. Public schools have a duty to provide students with viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet.”

Sen. Al Franken headed to Austin, Texas, on Monday to speak about net neutrality at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival, one of the largest film, music and interactive gatherings. In his speech, Franken said that net neutrality is important for many of the artists who showcase their talents at SXSW and that maintaining the current structure of the internet will help keep it “weird” — a reference to the festival host city’s informal slogan.

Franken called the internet “the ultimate self-distribution channel; the best part is that no one has to sell out unless they want to.”

The Minnesota Democrat warned that if the structure of the internet were to change, independent artists would have a hard time getting heard.

“I came here today to warn you that the party may almost be over,” he said. “They are coming after the internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important tool for indie artists and entrepreneurs: its freedom and openness.”

He explained what the term means. “Net neutrality means that content… moves over the internet freely and moves at the same speed no matter what it is or who owns it,” he said. “For instance, an email from President Obama and an email from your tea party uncle come in at the same speed.”

He added that opponents of net neutrality often say that proponents want to change the internet.

“We have net neutrality right now and we don’t want to lose it. It’s not about changing the internet at all,” he said.

He said the problem exists when corporations decide to allow certain content to be transmitted at one speed and other content at other speeds.

“Big corporations are not inherently evil, but they have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can,” he said. “Paid prioritization would make these corporations gatekeepers to decide which content goes in the high speed lane and which gets stuck in traffic depending on who paid.”

He added that lobbyists are derailing efforts to prevent paid prioritization. “Every policymaker in Washington is hearing much more from the anti-net neutrality side than the side without lobbyists,” he said. “But everyone has more to fear from these big corporations than from us. It would benefit no one but them.”

“Let’s not sell out,” he concluded. “Let’s not let the government sell us out. Let’s fight for net neutrality. Let’s keep Austin weird. Let’s keep the internet weird. Let’s keep the internet free.”

Minneapolis native Leif Utne of The UpTake spoke with Sen. Franken before the speech.  “To me this is the First Amendment issue of our time,” he said. “The right seems to want to say that this is taking over the internet, but it’s not; it’s about keeping the internet the way it is.”

He provided an example, “You get The UpTake as fast as Fox News — and that’s the way it should be.”

The message “If you see something, say something,” will be plastered on television and posters throughout Los Angeles’ Staples Center this weekend at the NBA All-Star game as part of a recent partnership announced Tuesday between the National Basketball Association and the Department of Homeland Security. Officials said the campaign partnership will “tip off” during the NBA’s “Jam Session” events.

The initiative is a move to ask Americans to help local law enforcement by keeping their eyes peeled for “suspicious activity,” DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and NBA Commissioner David Stern told press at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C. The emphasis toward civilian “suspicious activity reporting” has surged in recent years, but advertising campaigns and high-profile partnerships have really begun to take off.

In December, DHS joined forces with the Mall of America and with Wal-Mart, launching the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign initially in 230 Wal-Mart stores, with a target of 588 sites in 27 states. A short video plays at select checkout stations, telling shoppers to call local police if they see something suspicious. (The term “suspicious,” by the way, is rarely elaborated on or defined by DHS in campaign messages.)

Moving on to sports, DHS partnered with the NFL with its campaign at the Super Bowl in Dallas early this month. And now the NBA.

“We hope that this partnership will emphasize basically that security is a shared responsibility,” said NBA Commissioner David Stern at yesterday’s press event. “We think that sports is a terrific way to send messages, and to get people who go to events to focus on this very important message.”

Or maybe Napolitano is just a big sports fan.

“Our partnership with the NBA to bring the ‘If You See Something, Say Something’ campaign to professional basketball events throughout the nation is a vital part of our efforts to ensure the safety of players, employees and fans,” she told the press.

Inquiries have begun over how effective these campaigns are at protecting the country from terrorism. With sports fans and budget-conscious shoppers reporting “suspicious” activities every 10 minutes, does that help the security agencies or overwhelm the system?

David Rittgers, a legal policy analyst for the Cato Institute, said he thinks the national security agencies are overwhelmed with information.

“While there is value in getting a person on the street to be aware and report suspicious activities, you can also create too many false positives,” Rittgers said.

Rittgers said the Federal Bureau of Investigations receives about 700 messages a day, and the National Counterterrorism Center receives about 10,000 pieces of information daily. Clogging the system with even more reports of indiscriminate “suspicious activities” won’t necessarily bring these agencies closer to the information they need to prevent terrorist plots.

“People talk about connecting dots,” he said. “But it’s knowing which dots to connect that has value. …. The commitment to simply collect all the dots might not be as useful as a lot of people would propose.”

For example: “It’s not illegal to purchase a ski mask, it’s not illegal to purchase a gun, it’s not illegal to sit outside a bank. But it’s when you put those all together.”

The measure of success is still to be seen, but meanwhile the money is flowing.

“If You See Something, Say Something” are now being posted all over the country, according the DHS: on 9,000 federal buildings nationwide, at the Mall Of America, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, Amtrak, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the general aviation industry.

DHS allocated $2.9 million for the campaign in 2009, but an official told CNSNews.com that the agency has only spent $500,000 on the campaign to date, saying it is focusing its efforts on partnerships –- outsourcing security, if you will. And while Napolitano told the network the campaign has resulted in the launch of several investigations, she said it’s still difficult to measure whether it will effectively deter would-be terrorists.

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York says he wants to hold investigations into the “radicalization” of American Muslims in his new position as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, but Rep. Keith Ellison said on Monday that targeting one community would hamper homeland security efforts.

“I believe it’s important to have this investigation into the radicalization of the Muslim community,” King said in an interview with Fox News this week. “We have to break through this politically correct nonsense which keeps us from debating and discussing what I think is one of the most vitally important issues in this country. We are under siege by Muslim terrorists and yet there are Muslim leaders in this country who do not cooperate with law enforcement.”

Ellison, who became America’s first Muslim member of Congress in 2006, said that investigations like the one proposed by King will not cause members of the community to cooperate with law enforcement. He said it might have the opposite effect. Ellison said he confronted King on the House floor on the issue.

“I got so concerned that when I heard about it I actually approached Congressman King on the House floor and told him that, you know, look, we all need to be concerned about violent radicalization, but not just against Muslims, against anybody,” he said on the Ed Show on MSNBC on Monday. “What about the guy who flew a plane into the IRS or what about the guy who killed a guard at the holocaust museum?”

He said the proposed investigations should include all Americans. “You know it is worthwhile to find out what turns somebody from a normal citizen into a violent radical, but to say that we’re only going to do it against this community and we’re about to change the debate to vilify this community is very scary and clearly has McCarthyistic implications.”

Ellison added, “I’m willing to engage with Congressman King… Let’s investigate this thing in the right way and… enlist Muslim Americans to help safeguard our country… I’m fearful that if you attack an discrete, insular community, you will make people, good people, withdraw, and I would like to see Muslim leaders, if they feel there is some national security threat in their midst, they would feel comfortable talking to the FBI, talking to local law enforcement, and this kind of stuff can really discourage that.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Blogger-troublemaker-muckraker and sometime L.A. radio host Brad Friedman Wednesday nabbed Daniel Ellsberg for an interview. Ellsberg, the Defense Department analyst who leaked the 1960s Pentagon Papers exposing Johnson Administration lies tied to the war in Vietnam, has been in the news in the wake of the recent historic Wikileaks dump of hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables. President Nixon targeted Ellsberg for assassination at the time but Americans overwhelmingly now see him as a hero whistleblower motivated by dedication to Constitutional democracy.

Ellsberg told Friedman that he disagrees with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that Secreatary of State Clinton should resign for apparently encouraging diplomats and staff to spy on members of the United Nations. He also praised Assange as well as the suspected source of the leak, PFC Bradley Manning, who have been called respectively a terrorist and a traitor with many prominent figures calling for the assassination of Assange and the execution of Manning. Ellsberg called Manning a patriot and a hero.

Ellsberg also talked at length about revelations from the cable dump of covert bombing and assassinations by the U.S. in Yemen, covered up by Yemeni officials, the kind of serious policy action Ellsberg says the government is undertaking on behalf of the American people who have been unconstitutionally kept in the dark.

Firedman posted the transcript of the interview at the BradBlog.

Here’s Ellsberg on Manning:

ELLSBERG: I’m very impressed that Bradley Manning, the suspect in this, who has not been proven to be the source yet by the Army but if the Army’s –I should say the Pentagon and Army’s suspicions are correct then I admire what he did and I feel a great affinity for it, because he did say, allegedly, to the person who turned him in, Adrian Lamo, in a chatlog, that he was prepared, he was ready to go to prison for life or even be executed, he said, in order to share this information with the American people who needed to have it. And that’s the statement I said I’ve waited, in a way, for 40 years to hear someone make. I think it’s an appropriate choice for somebody to make. It’s not that they’re obliged to be willing to do that so much. That’s something a person has to decide for themselves very much. But I certainly think that when so many lives are at stake as in these wars or the new wars that may be coming at us, as in Yemen or even Pakistan, that to try to avert those is appropriate and to shorten them when they’re clearly hopeless and dangerous, as in Afghanistan.

[...]

Bradley Manning is not a traitor any more than I was. I’m sure from what I’ve read that he in fact is very patriotic, as I was. And indeed the charge of treason in our country, in our Constitution, requires aid and comfort to an enemy with whom you adhere. And adherence to an enemy to the disadvantage of the United States. I don’t think Bradley Manning or I intended at all to be disadvantageous to the United States. Quite the contrary. To do things, as I’ve said, to reveal truths that would reduce the danger that our policies are subjecting Americans to. And Bradley Manning, I’m sure, does not adhere to the Taliban or to al-Qaeda any more than I adhered to the Viet Cong, which was zero. So that charge is ignorant, let’s say, of what the term means in America.

And on Yemen:

ELLSBERG: One of these cases, of course, reveals that the Yemeni leaders, Saleh and his deputy and so forth, are assuring Petraeus that they were lying for us and lying to keep it from their own people that Yemen was being bombed by a foreign power, namely us. And of course that’s keeping it from the American people as well. We weren’t admitting that. And not only to keep it from the Yemeni people but to keep it from Americans because Americans, I think, do have a right to know who we’re bombing, who we’re at war with. Certainly Congress should be making that decision and has not been. Certainly. So our Constitution is being absolutely flouted on that, as is true in Iraq, for example. Or in Vietnam. So there have been some significant revelations, although on the whole these latest releases, large as they are in scale, haven’t yet proven as informative as the earlier ones on Afghan and Iraq. And they’re not, as I say, at the level of the Pentagon Papers. I wish they were. And yet there have been a number of significant revelations there. I mentioned one, that we were bombing …

FRIEDMAN: Yemen, certainly. Yeah.

ELLSBERG: … and that that was being concealed for us by lies to the Yemeni Parliament, which amount to lies by us, as well, to our own people. But another example, for instance, which is rather like some of the things in the Pentagon Papers, were the warnings by our former or recent ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, that our policy there of bombing, drone attacks and other attacks in Pakistan was, as she put it, counterproductive and dangerous. Meaning that it’s endangering a regime that, with all its faults, Pakistan, is less bad for us in the world and for Pakistan than what might well follow it if we destabilize it. And what we’re doing is destabilizing that regime. What that also means is that our policies are endan- in both Yemen and Pakistan, and Afghanistan– are endangering Americans at home.

The idea that these releases are dangerous I think conceals a very misleading and basically dangerous attitude. And that is that the only risks to Americans lie in telling the truth or exposing these operations, or in any degree of transparency. Now, there may be some risks, in some cases. There are risks in democracy, and there’s risks in openness. It’s not without any risk. Our Constitution, on the whole, relies on our taking those risks in order to be a democracy and to have, to avoid debacles like the ones we’ve just been mentioning. But what these critics don’t seem to recognize is that our current debacles in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, all these places, do not result from too much openness or too much transparency. They reflect the risks which were realized risks having to do with secrecy and silence and lies.

The silence about the lies that got us into Iraq, for example, or, and in general the decision-making that is getting us into these. Now, the case of Yemen, for example. Probably there are, there’s an argument to be made about whether we should be attacking supposedly Al-Qaeda cells in Yemen. At the same time, many people in the government, it has been leaked now, actually believe that those attacks will mainly be targeted with the help of Saleh, the ruler in Yemen, against people who have no relation to Al-Qaeda, people are opposing his regime for various good or bad reasons.

Rep. Michele Bachmann had her name removed from a public voting record under a law intended to protect people’s safety, especially victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. According to the St. Cloud Times, Bachmann is the only member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation to have her name pulled from the state’s list of registered voters. But while Bachmann’s office says she removed her name for “privacy” reasons, that’s not the intent of the law.

“I don’t think we can speak to the other members of Congress,” Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor told the paper. “For her, it was just a privacy issue.”

The Times notes that the law was intended to protect those whose personal safety is threatened. Gor told the Times that Bachmann’s safety had not been threatened when she made the request.

There were two laws passed in 2005 that dealt with removing information from the voter list.

Before 2005, to have one’s name removed from the list of required a court order, but legislators passed a law that year that made exceptions for the “safety of the voter or the voter’s family.”

According to the law, “Upon receipt of a statement signed by the voter that withholding the voter’s name from the public information list is required for the safety of the voter or the voter’s family, the secretary of state and county auditor must withhold from the public information list the name of any a registered voter.”

A similar law was also passed in 2006 regarding removal of addresses from the voting record.

The legislature finds that individuals attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking frequently establish new addresses in order to prevent their assailants or probable assailants from finding them. The purpose of this chapter is to enable state and local agencies to respond to requests for data without disclosing the location of a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;

Bachmann voted for both pieces of legislation.

O’Keefe was arrested yesterday; authorities say he and another man aided and abetted two others in attempting to interfere with the phones at the offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu in New Orleans, a felony because it was on federal property.

Here’s the resolution Kline supported:

RESOLUTION

Honoring the fact-finding reporting done by Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III in their investigation in the fraudulent and illegal practices and misuse of taxpayer dollars by the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN).

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III filmed investigatory videos uncovering the fraudulent and illegal practices of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN);

Whereas the House of Representatives voted to completely defund ACORN on September 17, 2009;

Whereas these videos resulted in the potential annual savings of millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations that contract with ACORN;

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III have displayed exemplary actions as government watchdogs and young journalists uncovering wasteful government spending; and

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III are owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) honors Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III for their work as investigative journalists;

(2) commends Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III for bringing to light the fraudulent behavior of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and helping save millions of taxpayer dollars that otherwise would have funded ACORN; and

(3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III.

Dr. Steven Miles

Former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton insists his alcoholism (recurrent but treated) and depression (mild and controlled) aren’t debilitating. To a former DFL rival who’s also a physician, that sounds right. Dr. Steven Miles says the effects of both afflictions are overrated in politics.

“Depression is rarely disabling,” Miles tells the Minnesota Independent by email, adding that “only jackals would suggest that it alone renders him unfit for office compared to someone like [U.S. Rep.] Michele Bachmann who appears stone-cold sober.”

Miles concedes that “alcoholism can be disabling for some kinds of activities.” But he says “it is rarely disabling for effective political careers.” He cites as examples the late Minnesota Gov. Karl Rolvaag and “the extraordinary leadership of [the late U.S. Rep.] Wilbur Mills (who ushered in Medicare)”.

Indeed, many times it is alcoholism itself that gets abused — as an excuse for bad behavior.

“Today, when politicians get caught with their pants down, they reveal and blame alcoholism — exaggerating its impact and the corresponding public perception that it impaired their judgment,” Miles says. An early example is the late Sen. Joe McCarthy — “a mean SOB who happened to be an alcoholic.”

Miles is no automatic Dayton apologist. When Dayton and his wallet made a late entry in the 2000 U.S. Senate race, Miles told Minnesota Public Radio that a bank account doesn’t equal a political base, and that Dayton seemed to be running because he had nothing else to do.

But Miles has personal experience with bipolar disorder. His dealings with depression became public when he successfully fought to keep his mental health files out of the hands of the state Board of Medical Practice (pdf), and he remained open about his condition during his 2000 U.S. Senate run.

Miles was a runner-up that year, a second-place finisher in the first two ballots at the state party convention, behind former state Sen. Jerry Janezich, who went on to win endorsement after the ninth ballot but lost to Dayton in the DFL primary.

What were the chances that two people in the DFL’s 2000 field of Senate candidates would suffer from depression?

Actually, pretty good. According to Miles, the lifetime risk of depression is about 10–15 percent, and for alcoholism about 5 percent.

“The nation would lose enormous talent and productivity by sidelining these people,” Miles says.

In a Twitter message, Jonah Goldberg wrote:

?? Dems want a health system that says when you can knee surgery, but demand abortion coverage because women should control their bodies.

While its moral logic confounds liberals at Instaputz and Wonkette, Goldberg’s tweet could supply a slogan for former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s political comeback.

Coleman himself underwent knee surgery just last spring — at his own option and, in all likelihood, at government expense.

So the Coleman for Governor in 2010 campaign might be built around the specter of”government knee panels” or the Constitutional protections of “a man’s right to choose.”