Recently in Minnesota Category

Fred Clarkson at Talk to Action links to a provocative article posted at Media Transparency by Rev. Dr. Andrew Weaver on the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). If you care about religious freedom or the state of democracy in this country I encourage you to read this real eye-opener. If there ever was a conspiracy in this country to undermine the American way of freedom, then the IRD and its cohorts are surely at the center of it.

Dr. Weaver, a United Methodist minister, reveals the influence of powerful neoconservative Catholics, led by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who drive the IRD agenda "to neutralize and overturn the social justice tradition of mainline Protestant churches". These aims are carried out through public attacks against mainline Christian and Jewish leaders, and through funding and support for so-called "renewal" groups within Protestant denominations whose fundamental purpose is to take over the leadership and assets of those denominations and eliminate their involvement in liberal and progressive causes.

As I noted in a prior post, the Star Tribune's resident neoconservative social commentator Katherine Kersten was (until very recently) a member of the IRD's Board of Advisors. Her views on every social and politcal issue — from environmentalism and immigration to same sex marriage and welfare — mirror exactly those of the IRD and its wealthy sponsors.

On Monday evening I attended the Soulforce Equality Ride rally in Elliot Park, across the road from North Central University.

It's interesting to compare and contrast North Central's position statement on the Ride with the Riders' own perspective.

The NCU Administration avoids dealing with Soulforce's charges of religion based discrimination, claiming in at least one place that to do so would violate student privacy rights under FERPA. Having listened to David Coleman's story and that of other LGBT NCU alumni, the university's definition of 'privacy' seems to be somewhat flexible, as also their definition of 'truthful.'

NCU asserts that it does not "summarily expel students who reveal that they have same sex attraction."

It is true that NCU does not expel students for revealing same-sex attraction. It places them on probation or suspension for not leading a compatible "lifestyle", and allows them to return only after effectively becoming "exgay." Which is effectively the same as expulsion, since most LGBT are unable to "change" who we are. The belief that LGBT youth can "overcome" their sexual orientation through self-discipline, prayer and reparative therapy is a religious myth right up there with creation science. Which is to say it is a fantastic and cruel assertion unsupported by either the biblical or scientific evidence.

Also, the University does not tolerate "gay-bashing" or abusive acts on our campus. These are contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who we as Christians are called to follow.

This would appear also to be an outright falsehood, unless one refuses to consider coercion into discredited and harmful reparative therapies a form of abuse. I know from my own experience that gay bashing takes many forms; not all of them leave physical scars.

NCU prefers to distance itself from these, the least of Jesus' brothers and sisters, by characterizing them as political opportunists who have rejected attempts at "mediation", whatever that means. Their message characterized as "political", not because of what they say (which is very religious) but because they draw a link between the school's religion based discrimination and the oppression of young gays and lesbians both inside and outside the church.

NCU's inability to see that it's faith-based policies toward LGBT youth produce consequences which are fare from the fruits of Christian love—and that their refusal to see these kids as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than as part of some "homosexual agenda" to undermine Christian society—are what is truly contrary to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Senator Michele Bachmann, Katherine Kersten, the Minnesota Family Council and their ilk couldn't care less if Susan Herlofson dies. As reported in today's Star Tribune, Herlofson has stage 4 breast cancer. She and her partner Pat Ferrian believe she wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for health insurance provided by Ferrian's employer, the University of Minnesota.

If the state constitution is amended to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriages or their 'legal equivalent', then the U of M would likely be forced to stopped providing domestic partner health benefits to Susan Herlofson and others like her.

Bachmann denies that her consitutional amendment will result in women like Susan Herlofson losing access to health care. But that is exactly what will happen once government is prohibited from extending marriage-like rights to non-married families. After all, the 'legal equivalent' language is in the proposed amendment wording specifically to deny such rights. It serves no other purpose. It is happening now in Michigan, where an amendment passed in 2004: the University of Michigan is now barred from offering domestic partnership benefits to new employees.

The effect of so-called 'pro-family' activism by the religious right, as always, will be the erosion of rights and protections for any family that doesn't conform to the stereotype. The amendment favored by Bachman, Kersten and others, worded so broadly as it is, would create a legal vacuum that will quickly be filled by litigation to test its effects and reach.

If the amendment passes, its real implications will be decided by the courts, not by the legislature and certainly not by the citizens of Minnesota. So "let the people decide" really means "deceive the people, tie the government's hands and let conservative judges decide."

The proposed Minnesota anti-marriage amendment was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committe today 5-4 along party lines. Its supporters will now try to bring on a vote on the Senate floor before the end of the current legislative session.

Michele Bachmann's lesbian stepsister, Helen LaFave, spoke to reporters afterward about how an amendment would hurt gay families. Coming out publicly for the first time,

LaFave said she disagrees strongly with Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the state's most visible champion of the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other legal equivalents.

"We've heard a lot of discussion about what this is all about," said LaFave, 46, of Minneapolis. "What this really is about is insurance coverage, inheritance rights and medical decision-making" for same-sex couples...

"This issue has been very hurtful to me personally, and divisive for our family." 

As Eva Young points out, LaFave wrote an insightful letter to the Star Tribune about Bachmann a year ago. 

Several others spoke of the real pain being caused already by the amendment's supporters. As reported by the AP via the Pioneer Press: 

"The whole premise is that if we do this, gay families and gay people are somehow going to go away," said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. "They're not going to. They're in my neighborhood and they're in your neighborhood. A constitutional amendment isn't going to stop any of these couples from falling in love, from making commitments to each other, from starting families. The only thing it would do is take away their rights."

... Cathy Peck, a Bemidji woman with a lesbian daughter, teared up as she described the emotional wringer she's been through over the issue.

"It makes us even more fearful for our gay and lesbian children," Peck said. "When you have pronouncements from authority figures, hateful letters to the editor, hate speak on the radio - these people are talking about our precious child, who came out of my body, and it hurts."

And from the recently chastened Star Tribune:

Ann DeGroot, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state's leading gay and lesbian advocacy organization, said passage of a constitutional amendment would create a "caste system" for families in Minnesota, including the potential for harming unmarried heterosexual couples and single-parent families.

"We believe this constitutional amendment is an attack on families," DeGroot said. "I look forward to a time when all of us can work together on legislation that strengthens and supports all families in Minnesota."

By comparison to the Star Tribune's puff pieces on the state anti-marriage amendment issue, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press ran a relatively informative article last Monday:

Amendment could reach far beyond marriage: A variety of rights for couples, gay or straight, are in doubt

The Pioneer Press discusses the 'legal equivalence' language present in the various proposed constitutional amendments, asking mumerous legal scholars what the effect of such language might be. The article points out that ramifications extend beyond same-sex couples to potentially include all unmarried couples — gay and straight.

Some of the areas were unmarried partners might be impacted or face legal challenges include:

• Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from state employers)
• Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from private employers)
• Domestic partnership registration (City of Minneapolis)
• Health care directives
• Insurance claims
• Adoption rights
• Nondiscrimination in employment
• Child support
• Other financial arrangements
• Other contracts between unmarried couples

I wonder if it's directly in response to the flood of complaints the Star Tribune must have received following Katherine Kersten's recent columns against 'gay marriage'? Anyhow, they have come clean with an admission (of sorts) of bias — or at least of inadequate and inaccurate coverage of the issue.

This admission appeared in the reader's representative section (Kate Parry), not the editorial, but the message is pretty loud and clear:

The newspaper needs to do a better job fully describing the scope of legislation to ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent...

It's the job of journalists to sniff out spin and do their best to expose it and neutralize the language... But the Star Tribune has done poorly so far this session neutralizing spin on legislation to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and "its legal equivalent" on the fall ballot...

Those words mean the amendment would "clearly include domestic partnerships and civil unions" as well as same-sex marriage... It also allows for judicial interpretation of other rights often associated with marriages that could be banned... This has potential impact on adoptions, inheritance and many other issues facing gay couples...

The newspaper has not made this clear, allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot. It's more likely to get there if lawmakers and citizens believe it applies only to marriages. But that's not the case, and the newspaper needs to quit implying that it is, through the language it uses -- not to defeat or support the bill, but to make sure everyone knows exactly what's up for a vote...

Which would a Republican be more likely to vote for (or against) -- lower taxes, or legal protection for their gay son?

Depending on your outlook, the answer might be encouraging. Eva Young points to a December 25 Star Tribune article on the St Cloud special election, which noted that:

Until recently, legislative special elections in Minnesota were thought of as a playing field tilted toward Republicans, who usually had better luck than DFLers motivating voters for these low-profile, low-turnout contests ...

Although central Minnesota is known as a hotbed of religious conservatism, [Senate Majority Leader Dean] Johnson [DFL-Willmar] suggested that "social issues are not carrying the day" as they did in the past. "Core issues" such as education, transportation, health care and the environment are gaining more attention from voters, he said.

[Republicans Dan] Ochsner, [Kay] Ek and the IP's [Dan] Becker are touting their opposition to abortion, support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage and fiscal conservatism. Besides the "core issues," [DFLers Tarryl] Clark and [Larry] Haws stress positive efforts to reduce abortion instead of new restrictions -- "The Ten Commandments didn't end sin," Haws says -- and note that a 1997 state statute outlawing gay marriage has not been challenged.

The DFL won both seats yesterday by a comfortable margin...

A St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity instructor defends (theologizes?) the practice of reserving front-row pews for the wealthy faithful at Mass...

Front-and-center seats for Christmas Eve mass at Nativity of Our Lord Catholic Church in St. Paul are on sale for about $1000. The money goes to fundraising for the parish's "faith-based" elementary school. Nice seat if you can get it, I suppose. What happened to saving the front seats for the elderly and those requiring assistance?

From the Star Tribune:

The Rev. Thomas Margevicius ... said it was once common for Catholic and Lutheran believers to pay for reserved seating. Name tags still hang on pews in some older churches to indicate who owned them, he said. "Some find that offensive in the present day," Margevicius said. "But it's just a cultural construct."

He cautioned against passing judgment on Nativity. "How certain are we of how God believes we should act?" he said. "God comes in unexpected ways and continues to do so."

Margevicius said the biblical story of the Three Wise Men who followed a star to the Bethlehem stable where Jesus was born could be interpreted as the first instance of paying for a front-row seat at Christmas. "They brought gold, frankincense and myrrh," he said. "They had enough wealth to make the trip to see the Christ child."

I wonder what Nativity would do if I paid my $1000 and then arrived for Mass wearing a rainbow sash? Which theological principle would prevail?