The good, bad and ugly of the Catholic anti-gay marriage campaign
Minnesota's Catholic bishops are undertaking a campaign to urge Catholics to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The bishops have generated considerable criticism for the timing of the campaign just weeks before the November elections. Here's a sample of what people are saying:
The editorial board of the Winona Daily News blasted the bishops' campaign. The opening sentence? "Let's face it, it's a lot easier to pick on gay people than it is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and give shelter to the homeless. It's probably cheaper, too."
A reader of the Winona Daily News is upset of the editorial board's criticism. Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz says gay marriage will lead to incest.
The editors' bias is all too easy to see. As long as the bishops stroke their heads and keep them purring, they're fine with bishops calling for political action. But pet the editors the wrong way and they hiss and spit, "Too far!" Oh, but the editors will protest that this is a matter of "discrimination" and making a segment of the population into "second-class citizenry." If this is true, then does the state discriminate when it says first cousins can't marry? Or brothers and sisters? Or aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces? Where, oh where is the editors' outcry of, "Relatives, unite!" This is a red herring, and a two-headed mutant one at that. First, there is no constitutional right to marriage, period.
It should come as no surprise that the author, Szyszkiewicz, who is alleging bias, "has been a writer and editor in the Catholic press for 25 years."
The Rainbow Sash Movement, a group GLBTers that are seeking positive change in the Catholic church, took issue with the bishops' campaign. Joe Murray, the group's executive director wrote:
Reasonable and educated people are not taken in so easily by the Catholic Bishops reliance on exaggeration and distortion to promote their position. They can no longer control the conversation about Gay Marriage, the message is getting through to the Catholic in pew from the secular media.
Contrary to what these Bishops are saying they are promoting prejudice, and are using all the old tools of that trade to attempt to get their point across. Indeed the Catholic Bishops of Minnesota and Iowa have no idea what is coming their way when it comes to human rights for LGBT people.
Jeremy Hooper of Good As You asks a good question, "Seriously - How can this man sit here and act like this, a push for a referendum in a largely partisan fight that attempts to misguide citizens on the proper role of the legislature and/or judiciary and that always relies on political consultants and strategists for its fear-mongery 'success' at the polls, is not a political action!?"
And Father Tony at Bilerico has some pointed questions as well.
But what is the core message? What do these bishops really fear? It's not that sanctity will be bridged, it's that they will ultimately be coerced to perform gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status. That is the nutshell. As usual, the Catholic bishops' main source of agita is the purse. I am so deeply ashamed of these guys, many of whom have been my friends.
In the Star Tribune letters to the editor, many people expressed their displeasure with the bishops' campaign, and some defending the church.
Sarah Fink of Columbia Heights says, "Let go of your mindset for a moment so that you can understand how others view their own actions. Let's not indulge in rash judgment. Important issues must be discussed, but please stop picking on the Catholic Church. Many people love being Catholic and don't enjoy constantly seeing others imputing the worst motives to our church's every action."
Mark Hanlon of Eagan took issue with Christians claiming to be victims: "This is not the first time so-called Christians have attempted to turn themselves into victims, and like all the other occasions, it's a laughable inversion of reality."
Republican apologist and blogger Mitch Berg calls the gay marriage issue and the bishops' campaign a "game changer."
And that's why Nienstedt, his DVD, and his un-named mysterious donor are all public enemies-number-one for the regional left. For my purposes, this election is about the economy, jobs and the role of government. But same sex marriage is a sleeping giant of an issue throughout this state.
And here are some related articles from my other gig at the Minnesota Independent.
Video: Archbishop Neinstedt says people should vote on gay marriage
Catholics say anti-gay marriage campaign not political, gay groups disagree
Evangelicals talk same-sex intercourse at Family Council press conference
Artist loses basilica job after criticising Catholic anti-gay marriage campaign
The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies. Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
We're people-powered journalism! Click on story links (below) to see more story information, and then email editor@tcdailyplanet.net if you want to report.
• 
Comments
Biased toward hypotheticals rather than people
Mr. Szyszkiewicz,
You are right that Mr. Birkey claimed you worried about same-sex marriage would lead to incest instead of incestuous marriage.
You may have missed that many people have been speaking out about same-sex marriage because they want to marry someone of the same gender. I have not seen anyone complaining that they aren't allowed to marry a blood relative.
The question then becomes, are these people who want to get married granted the same right to marry who they wish. The only reason they couldn't is if there is a risk to the citizens of Minnesota. Thus the state is must come up with a reason (that is not based on any one particular religion or one one interpretation of that religion) to prevent this right from being exercised.
As for those who want to marry a relative. They can also bring the issue up, and we can debate the risks. Until then, let's hear a compelling reason why same-sex marriages should not be allowed. I still haven't heard one.
Mike Huber, Minneapolis
In no country or U.S. state
In no country or U.S. state that allows same-sex marriage has marriage between close relatives been legalized. And, for the record, some U.S. states *do* allow first cousins to marry. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 6 years without the sky falling in or society collapsing.
Bp. wants Catholics along
Bp. wants Catholics along with seculars to have the vote on marriage... really? Based on the response so far and lack of obvious Catholic outcry over GLBT he should pray he doesn't get what he asked for. He's better off taking the philanthropist's dough and lining the pockets of a few politicians. Stands a far better chance rolling that crooked dice.
Fr. Tony Baloney
He's no priest - just a mixed up person. The Daily Planet should have done a little better reporting and placed a note in the article informing them of this. Very misleading!
Flawed religious thinking.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian :)
Marriage equality is the solution, not the problem
Thanks for tracking this, Andy!
OutFront Minnesota -- the state’s largest organization advocating for equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals and their families -- is glad to see so many across Minnesota speaking out for basic fairness.
Archbishop Neinstedt and his shadowy funders are worried and they're doubling down on these anti-equality attacks because they know their time is short. Within a generation this will be a non-issue. Already, most Americans grow up with GLBT family and friends and they just can't believe the lies about "grave societal dangers" caused by two men falling in love.
"Americans, and Minnesotans, get the point: allowing same-sex couples to marry legally strengthens families and communities," points out our executive director, Monica Meyer. And in 2011 we're confident that Minnesota will be the next state to legalize marriage to protect all our families.
If you support marriage equality, start by voting for a pro-equality governor on November 2nd. But you can do more, by openly pledging your support for equality and taking action at: http://outfront.org/marriage/actioncenter
You missed it
Mr. Birkey, two issues:
First, you missed my point. I did not argue that allowing same-sex "marriage" would lead to incest. Incest already happens. My point was that the government has the authority to say what is and is not marriage and no one complains when the state does not allow cousins, aunts and nephews, uncles and nieces, brothers and sisters or parents and children to marry.
Second, you took my "bias" comment out of the context of my commentary. The editors' bias is that the Church can pronounce judgment on political issues the editors agree with, such as race or nuclear arms, but once they pronounce judgment on issues like marriage or life, then the bishops cross the supposed line separating church and state. So which is it? The editors can't have it both ways.
And yes, I am biased, but that's what the op-ed pages are for.
Post new comment