In the wake of Bradlee Dean‘s controversial prayer before the Minnesota House on Friday, a number of religious and political groups condemned Dean and urged Republican leaders to disavow Dean’s prayer and his association with the House. The Minnesota Catholic Conference, which supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, said that Dean should not be associated with their movement. The ACLU, the DFL, the National Organization for Marriage, Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak and several legislators all weighed in on the controversy over the weekend.

Supporters of gay marriage ban respond

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy wing of the Roman Catholic Church, condemned Dean’s prayer. “It was wrong to have a person with extremist views, like those attributed to Dean, deliver the prayer in the House,” said Jason Adkins, the group’s executive director. “Dean disrespectfully turned the prayer into a polemic and his words divided the chamber rather than brought people together.”

Adkins added that just because Dean is anti-gay he shouldn’t be lumped in with those who seek a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

“It was also unfortunate that those who are opposed to a marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution used Dean’s remarks to portray supporters as ‘hate groups,’ as well as state falsely that Dean was there on their behalf,” he said. “As Speaker Kurt Zellers said in an apology today, which we welcome, the mistake was due to an internal oversight. Bradlee Dean does not speak for those supporting a marriage amendment in Minnesota.”

The National Organization for Marriage echoed that sentiment on its blog:

“The suggestion of violence (if this account is true) is abhorrent, especially from a man of the cloth. But should the people of Minnesota be deprived of the right to vote because somebody in the state legislature did not vet a so-called pastor?”

The group links to a Star Tribune story which refers to a statement by Dean during his May 15, 2010, radio show.

“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” he said. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”

ACLU letter

The Minnesota ACLU sent a letter on Friday afternoon to leaders in both the House and Senate urging them to refrain from prayers when those chambers are in session.

“The Minnesota Legislature is designed to represent all Minnesota residents, regardless of faith,” said Charles Samuelson of the Minnesota ACLU. “While we applaud Representative Zellers for his apology, we urge you to refrain from opening future sessions with any type of prayer, so as to ensure that religious freedom is protected for all.”

“Any reasonable observer,” the ACLU letter said (PDF), “would have understood that Bradlee Dean’s prayer – featuring multiple references to ‘Jesus’ – promoted Christianity.”

Politicians speak out

And Mayor Rybak weighed in in a video interview with Capitol Conversations: “To actually invite a minister that talked the jailing of [LGBT] people to give the invocation on the floor of the Minnesota Capitol, I don’t understand that.”

Rep. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis, sent an email to constituents condemning Dean.

“The emotions on this issue ran hot this morning when GOP legislators invited Bradlee Dean to deliver the opening prayer,” he wrote. “In case you are unfamiliar with Bradlee Dean, he is a hateful ‘preacher’ who has proclaimed that gays belong in jail and that he would ‘approve the death penalty for gays.’ His mere presence was insulting, but his ‘prayer’ was offensive as well.”

He continued, “I was very upset this kind of speech would be allowed inside the House chamber – or any place. Whether it is African Americans, women or the LGBT community, Republicans have sought policies that divide us, singling out minority communities for harsh treatment.”

DFL chair Ken Martin sent an email to party activists about Dean.

“Today, the Republican majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives invited Bradlee Dean, a controversial Reverend who has essentially advocated for the execution of homosexuals, to deliver the opening prayer for the chamber,” said Martin. “Governor Dayton said it best in response – there is no place for hate in Minnesota and especially not on the House or Senate floor.”

He added, “The fact that this man, who advocates for violence against gay people, was welcomed by the GOP onto the House floor with open arms is just abominable.”

As the Minnesota Independent has reported, Dean has long-running ties with Minnesota Republicans. Politicians, including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, have been part of fundraisers for Dean’s You Can Run But You Cannot Hide; Emmer’s former House campaign donated to the group; and prominent Republicans, including Dan Severson (who recently announced he’ll be running against Amy Klobuchar for Senate) and state Sen. Paul Gazelka, have been guests on his weekly radio show.

Last week’s House Judiciary Policy and Finance hearing on a bill that would ban taxpayer funding for abortion erupted into anger when Republican Rep. Tony Cornish of Good Thunder called a poem read by a United Church of Christ pastor “disgusting,” a term he also used for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Rev. T. Michael Rock of Robbinsdale United Church of Christ read a poem called “No Small Thing,” which relayed the perspectives of a fetus, a woman and God in the difficult choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy. The poem spoke of a sac of limbs, referring to the fetus and the amniotic sac.

Rep. Tony Cornish (R)

“I’ve got to count to ten before I give my comment,” Cornish angrily told the committee. To Rev. Rock, he said, “I find your testimony particularly disgusting, to invoke the Lord’s word in support of abortion. That bag of limbs and bones you describe could be found outside an abortion clinic, sucked out of a mother’s womb.”

Minnesota ACLU head Chuck Samuelson testified before Rev. Rock spoke, stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that it is unconstitutional to deny women abortion services if the state also provides pregnancy services.

Cornish didn’t like that testimony either: “And I find the ACLU just about as disgusting. You attack peoples’ liberties more than you defend them in the cases I’ve seen this year.”

He added, “It’s unbelievable about invoking the Lord’s word. I wouldn’t do that in opposition to abortion, to bring the Lord’s word into this. Ew.”

But Cornish has come close. During the debate last year on whether to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of cuts to health insurance for low-income Minnesotans, the DFL used religious arguments to defend the poor.

To that, Cornish said, “It gives me a tough feeling when you and your members mention God in the debate here and then trot out your Bible whenever it’s convenient. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about abortion. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about gay rights and what Christians feel about that, some Christians. Don’t do it just when it’s convenient and try to make us feel guilty.”

Hamline Prof. David Schultz said that Cornish’s words are par for the course in today’s political environment.

“We are at a point where each side demonizes the other, accusing its opponent as evil, calculating, as some type of low-life,” he wrote. “We make the other party or other side the enemy, and the purpose of doing that is to motivate the base. Make the battle one of good versus evil.”

He added, “This is what Tony Cornish did. The abortion hearing was televised and supporters of his position were in the audience. It was good copy to call names and demonize the opponents. I bet he runs the tape on You-Tube and for his next election. Again, it was a Jerry Springer moment.”

Should journalists who do their reporting online have the same access at the state Capitol that broadcast and print media enjoy? The issue is especially intriguing people interested in media and government. “It is a beaut,” said Minneapolis media attorney Mark Anfinson.

New media journalists have forced the issue by proposing a rule change that would add “online media” to the types of news outlets that can get credentials to work on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives.

Who is a journalist? Where does government allow journalists to go to report the news? Those are questions that came up during the Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul, Anfinson notes, but the online-media question at the Capitol “focuses it more perfectly [with] a single geographical locus:” the House floor.

“Some legislators are really freaked out about liveblogging and live uplinks,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. “It’s nothing personal. … [They] want to continue to deal with the media [they] know. I can understand that.”

But those fears shouldn’t guide policy, Kirtley said. “There needs to be some rational basis by which a government entity can decide who’s going to be there.

“If the issue is decorum in the space, then the body should have rules of conduct,” Kirtley says, adding that doesn’t mean rules regarding the content of reporting. What might they be? Hughes says he can envision restrictions on tripods that take up space and could cause disruption as they’re taken down or set up. Kirtley offers the example of a ban on noisily changing video cassettes during proceedings. If it’s not followed, she said, “We can kick you out.”

“We’re looking at it. We don’t have an opinion,” said Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN). He said the organization might decide on a response to the issue today. Samuelson said he’d received about 20 e-mails on the issue.

“Because the discriminated class are wordsmiths, you get a tremendous amount of smoke,” he said, as with issues involving celebrities, like former Minnesota Viking Carl Eller’s recent run-ins with the law.

The ACLU may step in if the current rule violates the state or federal constitutions. But those don’t contain specific protections or guarantees for journalists. “The First Amendment is there to protect publishers,” Samuelson says. “As a journalist you have no more rights than John Q. Public. …

“If I were to say I’m going to put a rule in [that] I can only allow 20 people on the floor as observers, we’re going to assign these observers according to circulation [or Web hits] … then next year assign credentials depending on circulation range,” Samuelson said. “That ‘s how I would do it: John Q. Public is represented by these [media outlets]. And at the beginning that’s basically what they did,” Samuelson said. “But the media’s blown up.”

Might the fuss put all media access to the House floor at risk? Anfinson, who represents news organizations across the state, thinks so, and Kirtley agrees it’s a risk.

Art Hughes, a radio reporter who like Kirtley serves on the state board of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), disagrees. “That’s not going to happen,” Hughes said. “There’d be a revolution.”

Related:

New Minnesota House form limits what would-be tapers can capture

Who Owns the J-Word? Videoblogger’s Jailing Raises Questions for Journalists

An additional 20 cases stemming from the mass arrest on the final day of the gathering are still being investigated.

“There was a lot of confusion for a lot of people that night,” said City Attorney John Choi in announcing the decision.

“Ultimately this decision reflects specifically our prosecution standard: Can we prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? We’ve come to the conclusion that, for the cases involved the Marion Street bridge and the Cedar Street bridge, that would not be the case.”

However, Choi defended the St. Paul Police Department’s decision to arrest nearly 400 people on Sept. 4.

“There was probable cause to arrest, but there wasn’t probable cause to prosecute,” he said. “Those standards are very very different. It is our obligation not to proceed on cases where we believe that we would not succeed at trial.”

Local civil rights activists said the failure to press charges is just the latest evidence that many of the arrests during the RNC were frivolous.

“The reality is that those arrests should never have been made,” said Bruce Nestor, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

“Much of the alleged disorder is directly attributable to the police presence and police overreaction.”

“They should never have arrested them in the first place,” added Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “I believe that they were arbitrary and capricious arrests.”

The city attorney’s office has now processed roughly 90 percent of the 672 potential misdemeanor cases stemming from RNC activities. Of those cases, 52 have resulted in guilty pleas or fines. An equal number of cases are currently pending in the court system. However, the overwhelming majority of arrests — 490 — have either not resulted in charges or the cases have been dismissed by the courts.

So far no civil litigation has been brought against the city for police actions during the four-day gathering. Anti-war protester Mick Kelly has sent the city a letter stating his intent to sue for alleged civil rights violations, but has yet to file a case.

The city has a $10 million insurance policy, paid for by the Minneapolis St. Paul 2008 Host Committee, to cover litigation costs. However, numerous lawsuits are expected in the coming months.

“We’ve got a bunch of cases we’re looking at,” said Samuelson.

“Attorneys have been engaged in active information gathering in consideration of civil litigation related to the pattern of mass arrests and excessive use of police force,” Nestor confirmed. “I would think that planning can now go forward.”

ACLU-MN investigated the allegations and in court documents filed in U.S. District Court said the Muslim organizations from which TIZA is leasing its space are illegally benefiting from the leasing arrangement.

According to the complaint, Asad Zaman serves as executive director, trustee and principal of TIZA and is also vice president of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, the religious organization that leases space to the school.

“He is thus subject to conflicts of interest resulting from his roles on behalf of both lessors and lessees with respect to the charter school,” the complaint asserts. “He has been quoted as stating that ‘Islam makes no distinction between public and private life.’”

The complaint lays out a number of other instances of entanglements between religious organizations and the school, improper prayer services, improper exposure of students to religious iconography and the posting of religious materials in public areas.

In addition, the complaint cites cases where Islamic religious traditions are alleged to be encoded in school policy. According to the complaint, the school handbook requires “girls in grades six through eight to wear a skirt or jumper with pants underneath or a ‘full-length dress (jilbaab)’” and states that female teachers must “be covered from neck to wrist and ankle.” Those rules do not apply to boys or male teachers.

The suit seeks a stop to state endorsement of TIZA and a refund of state monies received by the school. It also faults the Minnesota Department of Education for lack of oversight, especially in light of media reports about possible infractions.

“The lack of government oversight is a matter of grave concern, because the Minnesota Department of Education gives over $30 million annually in rent subsidies to charter schools and due to the agency’s lack of supervision, we have no way of knowing how much taxpayers are subsidizing religious organizations,” Chuck Samuelson, executive director of ACLU-MN in a statement Wednesday. “However well-run and academically challenging a religious school may be, it is unconstitutional for public funds to be used for religious education.”

Larry Craig Photo: WDCpix

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) cannot withdraw his guilty plea in the infamous 2007 Minneapolis-St. Paul airport bathroom sex case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today in an “unpublished” opinion. That means Craig is stuck with having copped in District Court to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct for allegedly signaling an interest in engaging in sex via foot taps from one restroom stall to another in which an undercover police officer was staked out.

The decision’s “unpublished” status means the court doesn’t want its ruling used as precedent in future cases — interesting, in view of charges that Craig sought special treatment or was being singled out for preferential or especially harsh treatment because of his status as a U.S. senator. Craig issued this statement:

I am extremely disappointed by the action of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. I disagree with their conclusion and remain steadfast in my belief that nothing criminal or improper occurred at the Minneapolis airport. I maintain my innocence, and currently my attorneys and I are reviewing the decision and looking into the possibility of appealing. I would like to thank all of those who have continued to support me and my family throughout this difficult time.

Whether the 28-year Senate veteran who is retiring this year plans an appeal isn’t known; Craig’s office has not yet returned a phone call to the Minnesota Independent. One recorded message said the staff was busy boxing up his files.

The case hinged on Craig’s plea, as cited in today’s ruling:

I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged because on June 11, 2007, within the property or jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County, specifically in the restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal, I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment or [sic] others, which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature.

And the offense that’s at the root of all this? As cited in today’s opinion:

The complaint stated that appellant “peered” into the restroom stall occupied by the officer for as long as two minutes and that the officer “observed the Defendant tap his foot several more times and move his foot closer to the stall occupied by [the officer.  The officer] moved his own foot up and down slowly.  [The officer] observed the Defendant move his right foot so that it touched [the officer‟s] left foot, at which point the Defendant‟s foot was within the stall area of the stall occupied by [the officer].”

Hudson, Toussaint and Kalitowski

A three-judge panel consisting of Judge Natalie E. Hudson, Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr., and Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski issued the decision. The opinion has two parts. First, the panel denied Craig’s arguments that his plea wasn’t specific about what action he was pleading to, and that there wasn’t an adequate judicial record of the hearing where his written plea was entered. (There is a record, the judges said; Craig simply didn’t provide them with a transcript.) It was Craig’s fault, the judges wrote, that he didn’t ask for a second hearing to establish what had occurred at the first — but at the time, Craig was still hoping to keep the case hush-hush.

The court didn’t buy Craig’s insistence that no “others” were bothered by his conduct (besides the officer in the next stall) as the charge requires. The judges said they took “others” to mean people who were also in the restroom at the time, and anyway the presence of “others” beyond one other person can be theoretical.

Craig’s late-in-coming entrapment defense also didn’t move the judges, who found that, for one thing, the senator initiated the bathroom dialog, and for another, failing to assert entrapment isn’t grounds to take back a guilty plea.

In the second part of the opinion, the Court of Appeals panel found that the law under which Craig was charged does not inhibit free speech to an overly broad extent. The senator knew that his foot-tapping might “arouse ‘alarm, anger or resentment’” as required under the law, and also that it was an invasion of privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) filed an amicus brief in the appeal at the request of Craig’s attorneys, ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson told MnIndy in an interview today. Samuelson conceded that the Court of Appeals “didn’t like our arguments,” which focused on the free-speech aspects of the case. But he contends, “Their reasoning is wrong.”

They talked about the language ‘to arouse’ … that inciting language. They say [Craig] was doing it. But they ignored that the guy who started it [the airport police sergeant] was not Craig [the official charge quoted above notwithstanding].

Frankly the court is really conflicted on this one. My gut tells me they just wanted this case to go away. The ACLU’s position in these sorts of laws have been used against gay men for a long, long time. If the police were concerned about public sex in the bathroom, then they should have followed best practices of police departments — put a sign on door, send cops through … the activity will probably disappear from that restroom and move someplace else. …

This really is entrapment, in our opinion. There is a line there that we think this sergeant crossed. By [the court's] reasoning the police officer is more guilty than Craig.

This a classic first amendment case of government suppression of unpopular speech. If this is inappropriate, what’s the status in heterosexual pickup bars? They [Craig and the officer] weren’t engaging in or planning on having sex in the bathroom. They were planning it [for somewhere else].

There is a double standard. Speech is speech. This never got more than speech. You can’t regulate this speech and then not regulate the speech of heterosexual people. … We don’t have police officers posing as [sexually available] women or whatever. …  The antidote to bad speech is more speech — the sign on the door [prohibiting bathroom sex].

With this ruling, Craig regains his rightful place as Minnesota’s most prominent issue of public-sex-in-a-bathroom-stall — eclipsing the more recent occurrence at the Metrodome during a University of Minnesota football game, where a sex act actually took place in a bathroom stall.

“The conduct at the football game,” Samuelson says, “now that was conduct.”