Police, Pride, and Philando Castile

Well, now that Twin Cities Pride has reversed its decision regarding the presence of uniformed police personnel in tomorrow's Pride parade, I appreciate local community leader and businessman Ken Darling's invitation:

Imagine this: What if the uniformed officers, whom the Pride Committee just asked to return to the parade, carried signs that said "We hear you." "We understand your fear." "We will do better." Or maybe just two words: "Philando Castile."

As you may already know, Twin Cities Pride announced this past Tuesday that a planned contingent of police officers and law enforcement officials would not be marching at the head of this year's Ashley Rukes GLBT Pride Parade. Writing in TheColu.mn, Andy Birkey reported that "the decision was made in response to a groundswell of opposition both before and after the not-guilty verdict in the police killing of Philando Castile."

And in a Facebook post explaining the decision, Twin Cities Pride executive director Dot Belstler wrote: “With the recent verdict in the Philando Castile case Twin Cities Pride has decided to forgo this part of the police participation in the parade for this year and respect the pain the community is feeling right now. There will just be one lone unmarked police car starting off the parade and there will limited police participation in the parade itself.”


Yesterday, however, the following statement was released by Belstler and the Twin Cities Pride Board of Directors.

Earlier this week Twin Cities Pride made a decision to forego uniformed, off-duty police officers from participating in the beginning of the Twin Cities Pride Parade. We would like to apologize to the law enforcement community for neglecting to communicate and consider input for other possible alternatives prior to releasing the details of this decision.

Following its release, we received input from impacted parties and through this input we recognize this decision has made members of the law enforcement community feel excluded, which is contrary to our mission to foster inclusion. Our intent is and was to respect the pain that the people of color and transgender communities have experienced as of late, but our original approach fell short of our mission.

As of yesterday afternoon, we productively met with representatives of these parties, including Chief Harteau of the Minneapolis Police Department and Roxanne Anderson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Transgender Health Coalition, in an effort to create a cohesive, unifying alternative which is inclusive of each perspective on this issue.

One unmarked police car will clear the way as originally stated, and we would like to invite members of the law enforcement community to participate in the parade by holding the Unity flag or marching alongside the Rainbow, Bisexual, or Transgender flags.

To our transgender and people of color communities, we will continue to respect your pain and angst by bridging the divide and continuing conversations on both sides of this issue to ensure we consider alternatives that make each group feel comfortable and safe.

Twin Cities Pride will also continue to keep communication channels open with all community members to ensure our events and activities that provide a place to foster inclusion, educate and create awareness of issues, and to celebrate our achievements.

– Dot Belstler and Twin Cities Pride Board of Directors
June 23, 2017

I've read numerous responses to the above statement. One of the most powerful is the following by Erica Mauter, LGBTQI community leader, executive director for Twin Cities Women's Choir, and candidate for Ward 11 on the Minneapolis City Council.

Just when I had hope that Twin Cities Pride had really listened to queer people of color [QPOC], they reneged, and I'm disappointed again.

TC Pride held a number of listening sessions and made some changes based on feedback. I appreciate and applaud that they did this. One of those changes was to remove the contingent of uniformed police officers with marked squad cars from the front of the parade. The parade will begin with one unmarked car to clear the route, per the law.

Police officers – in uniform – are not entitled to space in the Pride parade. The irony here is SO THICK. Pride was born when queer and trans women of color revolted against police brutality. I implore everyone to understand the difference between INTENTION by marching in uniform in the parade and the IMPACT that that presence has on QPOC.

Police officers are more than welcome to participate in any/all aspects of Pride just like the rest of us do. In plain clothes. Yes, all sorts of organizations show support for the LGBTQ community by participating in the Pride festival and parade. Yes, there are police officers who are LGBT and/or people of color. Yes, they want to feel like a part of the community, too. But MPD and Twin Cities Pride have to understand the impact that UNIFORMED officers have on people of color attending the festival. QPOC have, in fact, been saying so for years. I'm not even opposed to MPD having a unit in the parade. Carry a banner. Throw some candy. Just don't wear the uniform.

I'm grateful to Roxanne Anderson for her participation in yesterday's conversations, and helping to navigate to a compromise wherein uniformed officers will not march as a unit but will help carry the flags. In fact, that's a better default for future years.

As an OutFront Minnesota Action endorsed candidate, I will be marching in the Parade with the OutFront contingent. But make no mistake, I'm incredibly disappointed. I encourage all of you who are going to the parade to talk about this with fellow parade-watchers, and let Twin Cities Pride know that you do not agree with their choices.

– Erica Mauter
via Facebook
June 23, 2017

And since I began this post with words from local LGBTQI community leader Ken Darling, I'll conclude with another quote from him, one that was originally shared yesterday on Facebook, before it was announced that Twin Cities Pride had reversed its decision regarding limiting the presence of uniformed police in tomorrow's parade.

I have a long history with the police, as a former police reporter and community activist. I've been on numerous ride alongs. I've had good and bad personal experiences with cops. I've been in the media dozens of times discussing their actions. I praised the officers who ran into the Pulse nightclub on a national radio program. I successfully called for a Minneapolis chief to be sidelined in the 1990s. I helped the first cop in Minneapolis announce she was gay on the cover of the Star Tribune, back when that was a big deal. I was even on a commission that chose a Minneapolis police chief after a decade of poor community-police relations. I know cops. I respect cops. But I also I support the Pride committee's thoughtful and necessary actions to limit police presence at Pride this year. Communities of color are hurting and are understandably angry. We all know the police protect us, that most officers are public servants who give much and receive little. But – and this is a big but – police unions, police leaders and the entire cadre of police officers must do more to weed out those cops who can't handle the job, who fear people based on the color of their skin, who overreact with deadly consequences, who can't handle even the routine pressures of the job, who justify the history of racism that permeates police culture. Yes, you have a tough job. Yes, you deserve our respect. But another young man is dead, his life wasted for no good reason, and no one is being held accountable. Again. You must do more.

– Ken Darling
via Facebook
June 23, 2017

Related Off-site Links:
Some Police Complain After Being Told They Can't March in Twin Cities Pride Parade – Karen Zamora (Star Tribune, June 22, 2017).
Twin Cities Pride Officials Reverse Course, Invite Police to March In Parade – Liz Sawyer (Star Tribune, June 23, 2017).
We Need to Get Corporate America and Police Units Out of Pride Marches – Steven W Thrasher (The Guardian, June 12, 2017).
We Mourn for Philando Castile. This Violence Must End – OutFront Minnesota (July 6, 2016).
7 Seconds. That's How Long It Took to Kill a Compliant Black Man Carrying a Legal Gun – Will Bunch (Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, June 21, 2017).
Our Fear of Black Men Is Racist, and It Killed Philando Castile – John Halstead (The Huffington Post, June 22, 2017).
“Fear” Was a Viable Defense for Killing Philando Castile. With Police and Black Victims, It Always Is – Jamelle Bouie (Slate, June 23, 2017).
Cleveland Police Officer Bravely Cracks the “Blue Wall Of Silence” – Rickey L. Hampton Sr. (The African American Athlete, June 22, 2017).
2017 Is the Year of Black Fear – Ciarra Jones (The Huffington Post, June 22, 2017).



6/25/17 UPDATE:
Advocates for Black Lives Disrupt Twin Cities Pride Parade;
Demand "Justice for Philando"

Related Off-site Links:
Protesters Block Pride Parade, Demand Police Be Removed – WCCO News (June 25, 2017).
Protest Briefly Halts Twin Cities Pride Parade on Hennepin Avenue – Pat Pheifer (Star Tribune, June 25, 2017).
Black Lives Matter Protesters Stall Twin Cities Pride Parade – Fox 9 News (June 25, 2017).
Protesters Briefly Halt Pride Parade – Doualy Xaykaothao (MPR News, June 25, 2017).
No Justice, No Pride Is the Revolutionary Spirit of the Stonewall Uprising – Aaron Barksdale (Vice Impact, June 19, 2017).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Remembering Philando Castile and Demanding Abolition of the System That Targets and Kills People of Color
• Quote of the Day – June 20, 2017
• A Lose/Lose Situation
• Reclaiming and Re-Queering Pride

Minnesota Catholics, LGBT Students, and the Ongoing Work of Creating Safe and Supportive Schools

UPDATED: April 9, 2014


Yes, it feels a little like history repeating.

When I was in Australia around this time eight years ago I reported "good news from Minnesota": the state legislature had adjourned without approving a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have barred any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples and their families. The Minnesota Conference of Catholic Bishops had lobbied hard for the proposed amendment, with John C. Nienstedt, then Bishop of New Ulm, very much leading the charge. Of course, most people have forgotten this victory, overshadowed as it was five years later when a similar amendment passed the legislature and was placed on the November 2012 ballot. Nienstedt, now Archbishop of St. Paul-Minneapolis, made the passing of the so-called "marriage amendment" very much a personal crusade. After almost two years of often contentious debate (see, for example, here, here, here, here and here) the "marriage amendment" was rejected by the citizens of Minnesota. I was honoured to do my bit in helping defeat this amendment, both as executive coordinator of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN and as editor of The Progressive Catholic Voice.

So where and how is "history repeating"?

Well, once again I'm in Australia and reporting good news from Minnesota. This time, however, is not about marriage equality legislation, which, I should note, was swiftly passed (see here and here) soon after the defeat of the 'marriage amendment.' Rather, the good news I share today is about the Safe and Supportive Schools bill: Yes, it has been passed by both the Minnesota Senate and House!


"Doing what is right for our kids"

Local journalist Andy Birkey has been providing excellent coverage of the progress of the bill, the first version of which appeared in 2009. In his most recent piece for TheColu.mn, Andy writes:

The bill is a comprehensive plan to tackle bullying in Minnesota’s public schools. It provides a clear definition of bullying, protects all students while listing 19 categories of students often singled out for bullying, creates a school climate center and council to provide up-to-date anti-bullying research to school districts, and focuses on bullying prevention as opposed to punishment.

. . . “No child in Minnesota should have to choose on a daily basis between feeling safe and going to school, and with passage of this bill, they no longer have to,” said Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, the lead author of the bill. “Our students will now be able to feel supported, our teachers and administrators will have the tools and training they need to address bullying, and our parents will not have to worry about the safety of their kids in schools.”

He added, “Misinformation perpetuated about the bill is unfortunate. This has always been about doing what is right for our kids. No child in Minnesota should be bullied, and every student is going to be protected thanks to the Safe and Supportive Schools Act.”

Following are excerpts from the Star Tribune report on yesterday's passage at the Minnesota State Capitol of what's been called the "anti-bullying bill."

An anti-bullying policy considered one of the weakest in the country was scrapped by the Minnesota Senate on Thursday in favor of more stringent requirements that would begin to crack down on practices that have tormented some students to the point of suicide.

Every school district would be expected to develop and enforce plans to reduce bullying and would have to make regular progress reports to the state. The state itself would be required to develop a model plan.

Wearing a backward Minnesota Gophers cap and clutching a “Safe Schools” sign to her chest, Elise Coffin, 17, had her eyes glued to a telecast just outside the Senate chambers as members prepared to vote.

“I feel like there’s still thousands of kids out there that don’t have a voice and can’t speak up for themselves,” said Coffin, a Duluth East High School senior who is gay and who has been bullied. “If we can get a voice from legislators, it’s going to mean a lot more.”

Coffin laughed at opponents’ suggestion that the bill provides special treatment for gay and lesbian students. “People need to take a reality check and go through what it’s like to be an out kid in high school,” she said. “Special privilege? No. I think we’re finally going to be treated like we deserve, instead of second-class citizens.”

Strengthening the anti-bullying law has been a decade-long goal of gay rights activists and others concerned about bullying that affects a broad spectrum of students perceived as different. But the pushback from opponents has been strong.

Much of the lobbying energy behind the bill has been courtesy of OutFront Minnesota, the state’s chief gay rights group and a driving force behind last year’s successful effort to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota. The anti-bullying bill pushes some of the same cultural hot buttons as that debate, with religious and socially conservative groups expressing worry that students could get labeled bullies for expressing views learned from their parents at a church.

. . . When the bill passed 36-31, tearful supporters erupted in cheers after a debate that had spanned five hours. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, was greeted with back slaps and hugs as he pumped his fists in the air.

“It doesn’t matter for a kid based on where they live, they should be able to expect to go to school feeling safe,” Dibble said.

A number of provisions in earlier versions came out. The bill no longer requires schools to keep data and report it. They won’t be subject to mandatory training of volunteers. Districts will not have to adopt the state’s model policy unless they decline to devise one of their own.

The bill defines bullying behavior in part as behavior, words or images that could interfere with a safe, supportive learning environment; that instill fear or intimidation, or that have a detrimental effect on the physical, social or emotional health of a student. It also addresses cyberbullying.

Public charter schools would be expected to follow the bill’s requirements, but private and home schools would not.

House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said his chamber, which approved similar legislation last year, is likely to quickly send the bill to Gov. Mark Dayton, who is expected to sign it.

“I support the stronger protections in the anti-bullying bill . . . to provide local school districts with the guidance and support they need to make it very clear that bullying will not be allowed in our schools,” Dayton said.

A range of Catholic perspectives and voices

It should be noted that, thanks to intense lobbying by the Minnesota Catholic Conference of Bishops, Catholic schools will be exempt from the anti-bullying policies that will be enacted when the bill becomes law. Yet even despite this exception, the conference still lobbied hard to defeat the bill.

In February, my friend Mary Beth Stein had a letter-to-the-editor published in the Star Tribune. In this letter Mary Beth refutes the bishops' rationale for their anti-gay activism and explains how the Minnesota Safe and Supportive Schools bill is, in fact, in keeping with Catholic values.

The Minnesota Catholic Conference rejects the Safe and Supportive Schools bill, expressing concern that the bill is part of a larger agenda to normalize same-sex attraction. These suspicions reflect the attitude of some of the ordained Church leaders but not the heart and soul of Catholics in the pews. As was demonstrated in the high Catholic percentage who voted against the marriage amendment, we already accept same-sex attraction as normal. Everyone is created by God; who are we to judge? Rather than judge we are called to cherish.

The real issue at hand is protecting students. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students are frequent targets of bullying. The concern for all Catholics, indeed all Minnesotans, is to protect these and other vulnerable students from harm. What could be more in keeping with Catholic values?

The Twin Cities-based Council of the Baptized also critiqued the bishops' attempts to both exempt Catholic schools from the Safe and Supportive Schools bill and prevent the bill from passing in any form that specifically identified lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students as a group prone to being bullied. In February of this year the Council of the Baptized published "Catholic Support for Anti-Bullying Legislation Without Exemption for Private Schools," a position paper researched and written by Council members Daniel DeWan, Lisa Vanderlinden and Patty Thorsen.

The position paper states in part:

For the Catholic [bishops] to be asking for an exemption, they are, in essence, asking for the right to teach students in a way that is intimidating, threatening and abusive. This would be wholly contrary to what [Minnesota Catholic Conference spokesperson] Jason Adkins claims is the policy in Catholic schools “to treat every child as someone created in the image and likeness of God...” (MinnPost, April 24, 2013). Therefore, it would seem that Catholic schools are already complying with the legislation except for the minor burden of reporting incidents to the Department of Education.

The Council of the Baptized fully supports the Minnesota Legislature’s efforts to combat bullying in schools throughout the state with legislation that will define bullying clearly, and enumerates the students who are most likely to be bullied or harassed. Further, the Council believes that the requirements of the proposed legislation should apply to all schools without exemptions for private and non-public schools.

The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) also questioned the bishops' actions, asking:

Why is the Minnesota Catholic Conference of Bishops one of the biggest opponents to this bill when the bill already exempts private schools?

They say that if the bill becomes law Catholics in the public schools might be accused of bullying when expressing their beliefs about homosexuality. But bullying is defined as negative, aggressive, repeated behavior – not the same as sharing one's beliefs.

Do you think the reason given for opposing the bill outweighs the suffering and violence of bullying to kids beginning to discover their sexual identity? And what about those students being bullied because of race, ethnicity, economic status, disabilities, and other characteristics enumerated in the bill? Passing this bill will protect all students.

Well, thankfully the bill has passed and will soon be law. Many young people's lives will be made better and safer as a result. It saddens me, however, that, once again, the Catholic hierarchy is on the wrong side of history when it comes to an issue involving LGBT people.

I'm heartened, though, by the fact that teachers and administrators in many Catholic schools are doing what they can to support students who have either come out as LGBT or who are questioning their sexual orientation and/or gender.

I also feel very honoured to have been given, eight years ago, the opportunity as executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) to compile and edit a book that, to this day, remains the only text available offering strategies and resources for Catholic educators to create safe environments for LGBT students.

In their 2007 review of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective, Kristin L. Gunckel and Adam J. Greteman write:

Creating Safe Environments provides a much-needed tool to help Catholic schools address the issue of sexuality and the needs of LGBT students within the Catholic educational system. It illustrates the complex and political nature of the situation while asking that Catholic educators address this sensitive topic not solely from doctrine or out of pity, but with an emphasis on social justice and the pastoral need to care for all students. Bayly challenges those who take part in the training to not simply tolerate LGBT students, but to embrace them for their differences and recognize their unique gifts and existence.

Bayly traverses the complicated terrain by contrasting the theological issues with the reality that LGBT students face increased persecution and higher suicide rates than their heterosexual peers. He calls for the Catholic community to take action to embrace its LGBT students and create a safe environment in which they can learn and develop. He does this through various means including an examination of the cultural context in which the Bible was written and the passages often used to condemn homosexuality. Bayly also provides an honest look at the various statements that have emerged from the documents issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, which at times have not been the most positive toward LGBT peoples, but which he recognizes as important in the on-going discussion. Finally, Bayly addresses the reality that the Catholic Church is constantly changing, just at a slower pace than other institutions. The pastoral move to discuss sexuality outside of Catholic doctrine is a positive advancement. While Bayly’s guide may not suffice for all schools, it provides useful guidance on what the issues are and how the Catholic school community can and should recognize the existence and needs of its LGBT students.

Writing in the Canadian Journal of Education, Gerald Walton notes:

Given religiously-based backlash against LGBT visibility in society and legal rights that are equal to, but do not supercede those of heterosexuals (such as so-called “gay marriage” in Canada), Bayly’s book is a useful, essential, and comprehensive manual that addresses issues that are widely perceived as difficult and controversial. For those who are unconvinced, the bottom line is simple: all students deserve to learn in schools that are free of bigotry and violence. Bayly’s book is an excellent step in that direction.

I look forward to the day when members of the Catholic hierarchy make the decision to journey in the direction that both the Minnesota Safe and Supportive Schools Act and my book are leading. I look forward to the day when a book entitled Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective is no longer needed; when the strategies and resources such a book provides are simply a given in our Catholic schools.

May that day come soon.


UPDATES:
Minnesota House Passes Anti-Bullying Bill; Dayton to Sign Into Law Today – Mike Cronin (Star Tribune, April 9, 2014).
Republicans Semi-Privately Complain of LGBT-Inclusion in Safe Schools Bill – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, April 7, 2014).
Special Report: The Right’s 5-year Anti-LGBT Campaign to Stop Safe Schools – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, April 24, 2014).

Related Off-site Links:
Safe Schools Bill Passes Minnesota Senate – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, April 4, 2014).
Bullying Crackdown Passes Minnesota Senate – Patrick Condon and Abby Simons (Star Tribune, April 4, 2014).
Safe Schools Bill Passes Senate Education Committee – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, March 12, 2014).
Emotions Flare At Anti-Bullying Bill Hearing – Esme Murphy (CBS Minnesota, March 11, 2014).
Five Falsehoods the Right is Telling About the Minnesota Anti-Bullying Bill – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, March 5, 2014).
Opponents to Safe Schools Bill Testify, But Arguments Are Losing Steam – Beth Hawkins (MinnPost, March 12, 2014).
Catholic Hierarchy's Rhetoric Does Not Reflect Changes to Safe and Supportive Schools Act – Rep. Jim Davnie (MinnPost, April 26, 2013).
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions – Rev. Emily C. Heath (HuffPost Religion, September 5, 2012).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Confronting Classroom Homophobia
"A Courageous Document"
"A Valiant Effort"
"A Useful, Essential, and Comprehensive Manual"
CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis: Part 3 – Archdiocese Defends CPCSM's Efforts on Behalf of Gay Students
CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis: Part 4 – More on the Archdiocese's Efforts to Defend the Addressing of Gay Issues in Catholic High Schools
For the Record

Good News from the Minnesota State Fair

. . . and, no, I'm not talking about the "glitter bombing" of the anti-marriage equality group, Minnesota for Marriage.

Rather, I'm referring to the results of a straw poll conducted at the great Minnesota Get-Together, results that have led the Minnesota Independent to declare that: "Minnesota fair-goers reject constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."

Yes, of the record 12,549 people who participated in the 2011 House of Representatives State Fair Poll, 66.5 percent said the state constitution should not be amended to define marriage as "only a union of one man and one woman," while 29.8 percent believe the constitution should be changed.

As most of my readers know, this question will be asked on the November 2012 ballot. Could Minnesota be the first state to defeat an anti-marriage equality ballot initiative? It's hard to say, but these results certainly bode well for such an outcome.

The poll, conducted by the nonpartisan MN House Public Information Services, is described as an "informal, unscientific survey of issues discussed in prior legislative sessions and may again be topics of discussion in 2012."

In his Minnesota Independent article about the poll results, Andy Birkey notes that:

Both sides of the debate over the amendment rallied their troops to the fair to vote in the poll. Minnesota for Marriage, which supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and Minnesotans United for All Families, which opposes the amendment, sent email alerts to activists during the fair urging them to take the poll.

The poll had by far the highest turnout ever: 12,549 people took the poll compared to 9,926 last year.

Other controversial issues were on the poll this year as well. A slight majority favored requiring showing a photo identification in order to vote (50.8 to 46.4 percent), a majority objected to allowing the Legislature to call a special session (25.4 to 64.2 percent), and a slight majority approved of gambling expansion to generate new government revenue (51.6 to 40.1 percent).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Sharing the Good News of Marriage Equality at the Basilica Block Party
In the Struggle for Marriage Equality, MN Catholics are Making a Difference by Changing Hearts and Minds
NOM's Minnesota Battle Plan
Law Professor: Marriage Amendment is Divisive and Mean-Spirited
Winona Daily News Calls Proposed Marriage Amendment "Bigoted" and "Malicious"

Image: Michael J. Bayly (Minnesota State Fair, 2009).

Opposition to the Marriage Amendment Grows . . .

. . . and, as Andy Birkey documents,
in places you would not expect.

Andy Birkey (right) has a great article in the Minnesota Independent in which he rounds up the responses from editorial boards across the state to the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. It's an insightful and hopeful piece, and one that's reprinted in its entirety below.

________________________

‘Minnesota Malicious’: Papers Statewide
Pan GOP Anti–Gay Marriage Effort

No editorial boards have come out in support
of Republican plan


By Andy Birkey

Minnesota Independent
May 9, 2011

Newspapers throughout the state have come out against a Republican bill that proposes a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in Minnesota. The geographic breadth of opposition to the amendment, from the larger Winona, Duluth and Minneapolis to the southern Minnesota farming communities of Albert Lea, New Ulm, Fairmont and tiny Grant County in Western Minnesota suggests it may be a liability for Republicans instead of the turnout machine of years past. On op-ed pages, editors have called the amendment “unnecessary,” “malicious” and a “waste of time” — with one paper even called out several GOP lawmakers as “chickens.” So far, no editorial boards at Minnesota newspaper have come out in support of the amendment.

“Don’t Put Bigotry Up for a Vote” the Star Tribune urged in its weekend editorial: “In reality, enshrining this form of bigotry in the state’s premier governing document would be a step backward. Rather than reinforce an already discriminatory law, core values of equity and fairness should compel Minnesotans to repeal DOMA and extend marriage equity to all.”

In “Lawmakers Answering a Question No One is Asking,” the Winona Daily News had strong words for area legislators, calling them “spineless” for supporting the anti-gay marriage amendment:

Chicken. It’s not nice to call names, but what other word is there that describes it? Spineless? Pandering? Mean? Are those any better? Reps. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa and Greg Davids, R-Preston, as well as Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, are chickens. They’ve ducked any responsibility for terrible legislation and tried pinning it on the voters of Minnesota. The issue: Writing an amendment into the Minnesota Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

It’s the second editorial the Winona paper has penned on the amendment. The first, “GOP Definition of Marriage is Hateful,” didn’t mince words:

The message the GOP is sending gays and lesbians could not be clearer. We like you (or are at least forced to say that for the cameras) — just not as much as straight people. This new movement isn’t just legislation to define marriage. It’s legislation to prove we’re bigoted. This isn’t Minnesota nice — it’s Minnesota malicious.

The Albert Lea Tribune, too, had sharp words for Republicans. From its piece entitled “Amendment is Just a Red Herring”:

Bringing up the proposal for amendment about same-sex marriage at this point in the legislative session is like someone pointing and saying, “Hey, look! Is that an airplane?” while they sneak your french fries.” You might have heard of such moves before. In high school and college classes for critical thinking and in political science, instructors define such distractive arguments as a “red herring tactic.”

The New Ulm Journal was a bit less critical, but warned the GOP about legislating through referendum in its editorial, “Beware of Casting Political Ideas in Stone.”

“As we said earlier, constitutional amendments are serious business that should be used rarely. It shouldn’t be used to squash the political process and institutionalize one party’s political ideas,” the paper wrote.

In “Gay Marriage Issue is About Clashing Cultures,” the Fairmont Sentinel came out against putting a marriage amendment on the ballot:

What interest does the state of Minnesota — or any state — have in the commitments that consenting adults make to one another? The simple answer is: None. But things are a little more complicated than that, of course.

We raise this issue because Minnesota lawmakers are considering putting a gay marriage ban in front of voters in 2012. The ultimate question is: Should gays have their unions recognized by the state and be entitled to all the rights and privileges this implies? As of today, they are not.

The complicating aspect is state involvement. By democratizing the issue, we allow the traditions and beliefs of some citizens to deny state sanction to the hopes and desires of others.

The Iron Range’s Mesabi Daily News chastised the GOP for offering the amendment, but also hit the DFL for some bills the paper saw as a waste of time in its piece, “Both Parties Should Get Down to Work on Budget.” The editorial board wrote:

DFL state Sen. Tom Bakk of Cook is fed up with Republicans for their attempt to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the 2012 election ballot that would define marriage in Minnesota as only between a man and woman. He said it is a waste of valuable legislative time with four weeks left until the constitutionally-required end of the session on May 23. He correctly points out that work should be focused on how to bridge a $5 billion deficit for the next biennium that begins on July 1.

We couldn’t agree more.

But what Bakk does not include in his criticism of the GOP amendment proposal is that one of his own DFL Range colleagues, Sen. David Tomassoni of Chisholm, has also dived in to the constitutional amendment pool — or cesspool, pick your choice of words.

The Grant County Herald, a paper serving the county’s 6,000 residents near the South Dakota border, wrote, “The GOP is wasting time on marriage amendment” and called the measure divisive.

“Even though state law already defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, that is apparently not good enough for Republicans — not when they sense a golden opportunity to drive a wedge between Minnesotans with a divisive issue that will guarantee a huge conservative voter turnout in 2012,” the paper wrote. “A huge conservative voter turnout will, of course, help elect even more Republicans, who then, at last, will get to work on the other big problems facing Minnesota. Or so they promise.”

Another county newspaper, the Mille Lacs County Times serving the north central part of the state, said that “Republicans Are On a Rampage.”

“Now that they are in the majority, Republicans are hell-bent on passing legislation they never campaigned on. How often we hear that if I had known they were going to pass the ban on gay marriage, I wouldn’t have voted for them… And here we thought this was going to be a session about jobs and fixing the economy.”

The neighboring Mille Lacs Messenger suspects that efforts to amend the Minnesota Constitution to ban gay marriage may backfire. The paper’s editor Brett Larson wrote, “Betting on Bigotry May Backfire This Time.”

“I know how I’ll be voting if the amendment makes it to the ballot, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Senator [David] Brown is shocked by the number of those who agree with me. In fact, Republicans may already be getting cold feet, as they’ve softened the language to potentially allow for civil unions,” wrote Larson. “I suppose Sen. Brown bases his opposition to gay marriage on the Bible, which says all kinds of things are wrong that we now accept (divorce, eating pork, calling your brother a fool) and right that we don’t (slavery, sexism, forced circumcision). If we really want to base law on the Bible, we’re gonna need a whole bunch of new amendments.”

The Duluth News Tribune, in “Let’s Please Get Back to What’s Important,” found the amendment to be a distraction:

Few precious days are left in Minnesota’s legislative session, with a budget gap still unfilled and still totaling in the billions of dollars. Yet some lawmakers in St. Paul are focusing on — gay marriage?

It’s not like any Minnesotan should have been surprised by an effort this year to put the gay-marriage issue in front of voters. Such efforts have failed in the past when Democrats had control of at least one of the legislative chambers. Republicans control both now, for the first time in 38 years, so expect the following question on your fall 2012 ballot: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

So let’s give these matters the blip of attention they deserve. But then let’s please get back to fixing the financial health of our state, to ending wars, to curbing out-of-control spending and to other truly serious matters.

The University of Minnesota’s Minnesota Daily wrote, “GOP Agenda Needs Amending,” arguing that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is bad for business.

“For a party that claims to have businesses’ backs, Republicans are presenting a potentially detrimental move,” the editors wrote. “While this was passed 8-4 on party lines by a Senate committee and is one step closer to showing up on the ballot in 2012, GOP lawmakers whose names will also be on the ballot should remember that oppressive and unfair actions like this will not be forgotten.”

The McLeod County Chronicle, southwest of the Twin Cities, said it supports the ban on same-sex marriages that currently exists, but they opposed putting that ban in the Minnesota Constitution in their editorial titled, “Use constitutional amendment process only when necessary.”

Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant may have stated it best last Sunday. “… statutes and rulings are whiteboards that can be erased. Constitutions are granite.”

First of all, we happen to agree with the Republicans’ intent. Gay marriage should not be on equal status with traditional marriage. We can live with statutes for same-sex arrangements to protect their legal rights, but we do not support stepping over that line.

We already have a same-sex marriage ban on the books. Republicans argue that “activist judges” have overturned state statutes on same-sex marriages in other states, and only a state constitutional amendment can stop such rulings.

While that may be true, there needs to be a lot more debate before the voters of this state go to the polls to make informed, not emotional, decisions. Let us do the debate first and see if the public actually wants that constitutional vote etched into granite.

– Andy Birkey
Minnesota Independent
May 9, 2011

To read comments on Andy's article, scroll to the bottom of this page.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues: An Overview
Tips on Speaking as a Catholic in Support of Marriage Equality
Winona Daily News Calls Proposed Marriage Amendment "Bigoted" and "Malicious"
Law Professor: Marriage Amendment is Divisive and Mean-Spirited
Rep. Steve Simon on Gay Marriage and the Arc of History
Disappointing, But Not Unexpected: "Marriage Amendment" Bill Passes MN Senate Judiciary Committee
Governor Mark Dayton to LGBT Advocates: "I Stand with You"
A Celebration of Faith and Family; A Call for Compassion and Fairness
Quote of the Day – November 4, 2010
A Message for NOM (and the Catholic Hierarchy
Minnesotans Rally for Equality and Love
Responding to Bishop Tobin's Remarks on Gay Marriage
Archbishop Nienstedt Calls (Again) for a Marriage Amendment to Minnesota's Constitution
A Catholic Statement of Support for Same-Sex Marriage

Recommended Off-site Links:
Most U.S. Catholics Back Civil Marriage for Gays – Lou Chibbaro Jr. (The Washington Blade, March 31, 2011).
Catholics More Supportive of Gay Rights Than General Public, Other Christians – Michael Sean Winters (National Catholic Reporter, March 22, 2011 – via The Progressive Catholic Voice).
U.S. Catholics Break with Church Hierarchy on Gay Relationships – Cathy Lynn Grossman (USA Today, March 23, 2011).
Banning Gay Marriage Would Institutionalize Injustice – Gary Boelhower (Duluth News Tribune, May 1, 2011).

The Minnesota Bishops' Last Ditch Effort

I’m quoted in a Minnesota Independent article today about the renewed campaign by some of Minnesota’s Roman Catholic bishops to prevent same-sex civil marriage becoming legal in Minnesota.

The article also acknowledges the October 21 event that the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities – the organization I work for – is planning so as to counter this campaign. It's a campaign that many people - Catholics included - see as misguided, unnecessary, and non-reflective of the justice, compassion, and inclusivity at the heart of Jesus' life and message.

As I note in the article, I believe that in many ways what the bishops are doing can be seen as a last ditch effort to try and get Catholics to vote against the pro-gay marriage candidates (including for governor) in the upcoming November elections.

Interestingly, according to Dictionary.com, the expression "last ditch effort" means a "desperate final attempt." It alludes to the military sense of last ditch, "the last line of defense," and its figurative use dates from the early 1800s. Given that those Catholics who oppose marriage equality see themselves as waging a war against evil in their defense of so-called "traditional marriage," I guess my use of this term is appropriate!

__________________________________________

Catholic Bishops Preparing Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign
in Minnesota

By Andy Birkey
The Minnesota Independent
September 15, 2010

Some of Minnesota’s Catholic bishops are preparing a push against the legalization of same-sex marriage in the final two months of the 2010 campaign season. So far, most Minnesota bishops are not making their plans public, but Bishop John Quinn of the Winona Diocese gave parishioners a glimpse in a recent newsletter (PDF). “The bishops of Minnesota are alarmed by the continuing attacks on the institution of marriage, and we are taking action,” he wrote.

Quinn reports that the diocese is sending parishes a DVD that provides “more detail about the Church’s teaching on marriage and about the possible effects that a same sex marriage policy would have in our state.”

Traditional marriage is suffering attacks, he wrote, and “the most threatening now are efforts to legalize ’same sex’ or ‘gay’ marriage, that is, marriage between two men or between two women.”

He adds, “I hope that you will become one of the thousands of Catholics who have contacted legislators and told them that marriage is a lifetime relationship between one man and one woman.”

The effort is part of a larger campaign by Minnesota’s Roman Catholic bishops. While the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis hasn’t yet responded to the Minnesota Independent’s query about its plans for the campaign, it did offer some hints to Divinity and Beyond, a Minnesota blog about religion.

Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Diocese said, “The details are yet to be firmed up. I don’t want to talk about it just yet. This is still kind of taking shape.”

Michael Bayly of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, a group working to reform the Roman Catholic Church so that it is more inclusive of LGBT Catholics, said the campaign isn’t a shock.

“I’m not surprised that the Minnesota Roman Catholic bishops are planning an anti-marriage equality campaign,” he said. “The good news is that unlike five years ago, they’re now on the defensive, not the offensive.”

He said the bishops are reacting to marriage equality legislation in the last legislative session and the possibility of Minnesotans electing a governor who supports same-sex marriage. DFLer Mark Dayton and Independence party candidate Tom Horner support it, while GOPer Tom Emmer is opposed.

“Marriage equality is coming to Minnesota, and they’re clearly not happy about it,” added Bayly. “In many ways I see what they’re doing as a last ditch effort to try and get Catholic voters to turn the election away from a win for the Democrats and thus marriage equality.”

He said his group is already working on an event that will run counter to those efforts. CPCSM is bringing in Daniel Maguire, author of “Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage,” to the Twin Cities on Oct. 21. The event aims to “get the word out that one can be Catholic and support marriage equality, and not all Catholics are going along with the anti-gay and anti-marriage equality rhetoric and actions of the bishops,” he said.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis brought in Maggie Gallagher earlier this year to discuss strategies for opposing gay marriage. Gallagher is a founder of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that has targeted Minnesota extensively in 2010.

And last week, Archbishop John Neinstedt renewed his call for an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

“As a citizen, it is important to understand how marriage, as a union between one man and one woman, has been and continues to be an essential good for our society,” he wrote.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Minnesota Catholics For, Against Gay Marriage – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, September 15, 2010).
If I Could Have a Conversation with the Archbishop – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, May 8, 2010).
Two Catholic Bishops, Conscience, and the Common Good – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, June 14, 2009).
Dialoging with the Bishop – The Progressive Catholic Voice (January 1, 2009).
A Defense of Same-Sex Marriage – Daniel Maguire (Catholics for Marriage Equality, February 3, 2010).
Do Religions Reject Gay Marriage? – Daniel Maguire (Consortimnews.com, August 18, 2010).
Young Catholics Will Change the Church on Gay Rights – Michael A. Jones (GayRights.org, September 15, 2010).

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
A Message for NOM
Archbishop Nienstedt Calls (Again) for a Marriage Amendment to Minnesota’s Constitution
Archbishop Nienstedt’s Unconvincing Argument
Archbishop Nienstedt Has It Wrong
Distinguishing Between Roman Catholic Theology and Civil Law in the Struggle for Marriage Equality
Dale Carpenter on the “Win-Win” Reality of Gay Marriage
At UST, a Rousing and Very Catholic Show of Support for Same-Sex Marriage
Minnesotans Rally for Equality and Love at the State Capitol
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol

Andy Birkey on the Church's "Blame the Gays" Fixation

Over at the Star Tribune’s “Your Voices” forum, Twin Cities-based journalist Andy Birkey (pictured at right) has a detailed exposé of not only the Roman Catholic Church’s misplaced fixation on homosexuality in the midst of the ongoing clergy sex abuse crisis, but of the latest efforts of Archbishop John Nienstedt to deny civil marriage rights to same-sex couples in Minnesota.

Andy’s piece is reprinted in its entirety below.

___________________________________

Amid Moral Scandal, Catholic Church Focuses on Gays

By Andy Birkey

Star Tribune – “Your Voices”
April 9, 2010

Despite a growing controversy that threatens to undermine the “moral authority” of the Catholic Church, the institution is bringing a pair of gay marriage opponents to the Twin Cities to talk about the immorality associated with two adults of the same gender entering into a lifelong commitment. And while the Vatican is mired in an (yet another) series of international child sexual abuse scandals, they’ve wasted no time in blaming the “gay agenda” for manufacturing the scandal and that “homosexuals” within the priestly ranks are responsible for crimes against children.

Maggie Gallagher is the president of the National Organization for Marriage, the lead organization working to beat back same-sex marriage across the country. They’ve already succeeded in revoking marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California and repealed a democratically-passed law in Maine that would have allowed same-sex marriage.

The Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop of Oakland, dubbed the “father” of California’s Proposition 8, was responsible for much of the heated anti-gay rhetoric that permeated California in the 2008 elections.

Both have been invited to speak at the University of St. Thomas on April 17 at the “Archdiocesan-wide Reclaiming the Culture of Marriage and Life Spring Forum,” aimed at “helping the faithful Understand the Cultural and Legal Battle over the restoration of marriage and the respect for human life.”

The event at the University of St. Thomas is only one part of an ongoing campaign by the broader church hierarchy to mobilize Catholics against legalizing same-sex marriage, something Minnesotans are slowly realizing is the fair and just thing to do.

At recent legislative hearings on a trio of bills to allow some rights for same-sex couples, Minnesota’s Catholic bishops sent a representative who said gays and lesbians should not fall in love, should not form families and should not get married. In fact, Father Michael Becker said that gay and lesbian couples cannot feel love from each other and that it’s just about sex and gay sex is about “essentially one person using another.” He restated the Catholic doctrine that people experiencing same-sex attraction should remain celibate.

And if speaking out on and organizing against same-sex marriage wasn’t enough, gays and lesbians have gotten a double whammy from the church. As the Vatican and church patriarchy look to deflect a damaging amount of press over the latest reports of crimes against children and efforts by leaders to keep the crimes “dealt with within the church,” Catholic leaders have been talking out of both sides of their mouths. They are blaming the gay community for both perpetrating the crimes and being too outraged about them.

Perhaps the most prominent voice in tarnishing gays has been Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. “Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent,” he said recently. “While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.”

The people behind the research that Donahue cites, say he has it all wrong. “What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” Margaret Smith, a researcher from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, told Politics Daily. “At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse.”

It also could be that all priests are celibate men, an important part of Catholic culture. And that priests are many times more likely to be in contact with boys and young men as altar boys and other church roles. That complicates Donahue’s assertion that “most of the molesters have been gay.”

Guess what each one of the predators have been? Catholic religious leaders. That this scandal has been ongoing for more than 50 years, one would think the church would look internally to identify the problem, or clean house and strip offenders of the priesthood and turn them over to law enforcement. Perhaps the Pope could offer sincere apologies and offer victims some assistance and acknowledge the level of corruption at work through the ranks of the Catholic hierarchy.

But those things don’t seem to high on the Pope’s priority list.

On Tuesday, the Pope’s representatives blamed the media storm involving child abuse on gay and lesbians with an agenda. “The pope defends life and the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, in a world in which powerful lobbies would like to impose a completely different agenda,” said Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz.

“By now, it’s a cultural contrast,” said the Vatican’s dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano. “The pope embodies moral truths that aren’t accepted [by gays and lesbians], and so, the shortcomings and errors of priests are used as weapons against the church.”

“Shortcomings and errors” is putting it mildly. The sexual abuse of children is a crime in most jurisdictions. As is the covering up of sexual abuse. “Criminal activity” is what has happened in these cases. And irreparable harm to children, something the church can never repair for as long as the victims live.

New revelations this week involved a priest in Minnesota who allegedly violated two teenage girls several years ago. The Minnesota bishop in charge didn't immediately go to the police when the accusations became known instead opting to go through the Vatican. Five years later, the priest might actually be prosecuted.

That’s a pattern that has developed over the last few weeks as new revelations of alleged abuses and cover-ups are reported. Over the last few decades, allegations of sexual abuse have arisen in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Phillipines.

In the United States, cases have gone to court in Alaska, Massachussetts, Illinois, Colorado, Iowa, Hawaii, California, Wisconsin, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oregon, Texas, Georgia, and Washington (Minnesota is currently trying to extradite a priest who is living in India).

Yet, Catholic leaders continue to say that it's a “homosexual problem” and a concerted effort by gay activists to tarnish the Pope, the Vatican and the Catholic Church.

The real problem, however, is the church's stance on sexuality, marriage and religious leadership.

Michael Bayly of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, a group of LGBT Catholics based in Minneapolis that is working for structural changes within the church, took issue with the church’s handling of the issue of sexuality, especially the incidents of male sexual assault on young man and boys.

“You have to ask why is it that it’s in the Roman Catholic Church that that’s happened. And I think if it is an over-representation [of same-sex abuse], we have to look at what it is about the Roman Catholic Church and its understanding and teaching on homosexuality [that keeps some gay men in the priesthood in an underdeveloped psycho-sexual state],” he said on a recent radio interview. “[W]e are all ultimately responsible for our own behavior. But I think the structure of the church [and] its way of thinking and talking about human sexuality are very dysfunctional.”

Prominent commentator Andrew Sullivan, himself a Catholic, got to the heart of the matter:

I don’t believe that you can tackle this problem without seeing it as a symptom of a much deeper failure of the church to come to terms with sexuality, sexual orientation and the warping, psychologically distorting impact of compulsory celibacy in the priesthood. If women and married men were allowed to be priests, if homosexuality were regarded in Catholic theology as a healthy and rare difference rather than as a shameful disorder, this atmosphere would end, and these crimes would for the most part disappear and the cloying, closeted power-structure which enabled them to go unpunished for so long would finally crumble. And the church could grow again.

Through the truth, not around it. But it's exactly that truth that this pontiff and his enablers refuse to acknowledge. It would kill them.

So, while the church in the Twin Cities dwells on evils of gay marriage at “an archdiocesan-wide initiative inspired by Archbishop John Nienstedt,” perhaps the church in the Twin Cities, Rome, and around the world should start a real forum on morality starting with the culture of Catholic leadership.

And society should think twice about following the Pope’s edicts on same-sex marriage. Because an institution that has trouble acknowledging its own (criminal) immorality does not have any business pointing the finger at anyone else, let alone continuing a campaign to deny their rights.

Andy Birkey is a journalist and LGBT community advocate. His writing about LGBT issues has been honored by the Sex Positive Journalism Awards and the Online News Association. In 2008, Andy was selected by DIVA MN to be honored as one of their Club Kids, one of “ten twenty to thirty-something activists making positive impacts in the community.”


To learn about the protest being planned for the visit to the Twin Cities of Maggie Gallagher and Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, click here.


Recommended Off-site Links:
1985 Letter Shows Future Pope Stalled Pedophile Case - Gillian Flaccus (Associated Press, April 9, 2010).
Rescue Catholicism from the Vatican - James Carroll (The Boston Globe, April 5, 2010).
Defense! Defense! - A Report from the Front Lines of the Culture Wars - Brian McNeill (The Progressive Catholic Voice, December 3, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Donohue’s “Blame the Gays” Tactic Refuted by John Jay Study Researcher
Blaming the Gays
An Offering of Ashes
The Roman Catholic Pyramid is Crumbling
Andy Birkey on Katherine Kersten’s "Bullying Tactics"
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol
MN Legislators Hear from Advocates and Opponents of Marriage Equality
Same-sex Marriage: Still Very Much on the Archbishop’s Mind

Have Message, Will Be at Capitol!

Well, that didn’t take as long as I thought!

Indeed, I managed to get my hands on the placard I was looking for within a few minutes.

It was where I thought it would be: with a whole bunch of others, gathering dust under the bed in the spare room.



I went looking for this particular sign (one that was originally created for this event) as I thought its message would be a good one to take to the Minnesota State Capitol tomorrow afternoon. You see, a rather significant event is taking place there: the first ever scheduled hearing by the Minnesota House on legislation to extend marriage equality to gay and lesbian Minnesotans!

Andy Birkey does his usual excellent job in explaining the particulars of this hearing in the February 18 article from TheColu.mn reprinted below. But before we get to that, let me explain why I feel compelled to carry the above sign at the State Capitol tomorrow.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the clerical leadership of the Roman Catholic Church expends a lot of money and energy discrediting and undermining efforts taking place in the civil arena to give gay and lesbian couples civil marry rights.

Yet it’s important to remember what theologian Mary Hunt says:

. . . [A]n increasing number of Catholics completely reject [the clerical leadership’s] view [on homosexuality] and support same-sex couples and families. It is important to underscore that what is touted as “the” Catholic position by the hierarchy is but one among differing Catholic theologies of sexuality. Note to lawmakers: The hierarchy does not speak for the members on this and each member is a voter.

I can’t think of a better way to let the lawmakers at the State Capitol know that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church does not speak for me on this issue than to be present tomorrow with my sign - one that clearly conveys to them and others the message that “I'm a Catholic who supports equal civil marriage rights for all!”

Why don’t you join me if you can! Andy’s article below has the details of where and when.

________________________________

“Historic” Hearing on Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota

By Andy Birkey

TheColu.mn
February 18, 2010

The House Civil Justice Committee will be the first in Minnesota’s history to conduct a hearing on the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Three bills will be up for discussion on Monday, and all three are supportive of expanded relationship rights for Minnesota’s same-sex couples.

The Marriage and Family Protection Act would make marriages in Minnesota gender neutral, a civil unions bill is also being proposed and another bill would recognize same-sex marriage performed in states where it is legal, such as neighboring Iowa.

“The hearing will be historic because it is the first time a committee in our state Legislature will be looking at what enacting marriage equality means for Minnesota,” said OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT equality group.

The hearing will be held at 4:30pm on Monday, February 22 in State Office Building Room 10.

Outfront says, “supporters of marriage equality will speak about what it would be like if our state no longer explicitly barred same-sex couples from legal protections, Legislators will hear from experts and their constituents that discrimination against people because of who they love or who they are is wrong.”

But not everyone in in the LGBT community pleased about the hearing. Citizen activist Doug Benson who secured legislative support for the Marriage and Family Protection Act called it a “show hearing” because there will be no vote taken on the bills so they won’t advance out of committee.

“There won’t be a vote on our bill because one of the bill’s likely yes votes left the committee for reasons I am not aware of,” he said. “It’s basically a show hearing to shut us up.”


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol
Sen. John Marty on Marriage Equality in MN: “We Can Make It Happen”
America’s New Civil Rights Battle
Steve Chapman: “Time is On the Side of Gay Marriage”
Dr. Erik Steele and the “Naked Truth on Same-Sex Marriage”
The Same People
An Ironic Truth
A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage