Katherine Kersten distorts truth about language of gay marriage amendment

katherinekersten.jpg
Katherine Kersten wants to defend you from the truth.
There are many falsehoods in today's latest loony epistle from conservative school marm Katherine Kersten, not least of which is the notion that enemies of gay marriage are the ones who need to fear intimidation--as if gays were trying to whip the state into a frenzy to vote against the validity of heterosexual relationships.

But there is a particularly heinous act of obscuration that she commits when trying to explain why so-called "Defense of Marriage" amendments have passed in so many states where the citizens actually oppose banning gay marriage.

What is happening is that polls are telling the truth that legislators are hiding, and a lot of voters are getting fooled at the ballot box.

Which means the ban on gay marriage could pass here even though more than 50% of voters in Minnesota are actually against banning gay marriage.

kerstenhed.jpg
Why do polls consistently fail to predict voters' behavior? There are several reasons. First, many polls use misleading language. They ask people if they want to "ban" same-sex marriage instead of using the amendment language that voters will actually encounter in the polling booth. (In our state, that language is: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.")
You'll notice that the language in the amendment can easily be misinterpreted. You could be voting to ban polygamous relationships as seen on the popular TV show Sister Wives. Or perhaps you don't realize all the power of the sentence is in "only" and you think it's a vote to affirm that the state should recognize your own longstanding marriage, especially when it comes to important issues like tax breaks.

So when a newspaper like the Star Tribune runs a poll asking readers if they approve of banning same-sex marriage, they are not obscuring the truth from their readers, they are revealing the truth that GOP legislators purposely tried to hide with misleading ballot language: this amendment has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage and everything to do with banning gay marriage.

Previous Coverage

-> Bradlee Dean, homophobic preacher, gives opening House prayer
-> Michele Bachmann prays for Bradlee Dean's homophobic ministry
My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
April
April

Frankly, I won't take any of them seriously about their supposed "NOT bigoted" opposition to gay marriage, especially on religious grounds, until they start getting a helluva lot louder about the amorality of heterosexual marriages not blessed by a church.  That's what this all comes down to, after all; what they think their god would want them to do. And a marriage recognized by the state and NOT the church is just as "unholy" as a gay marriage recognized by the state and not the church. And THAT, my friends, is bigotry, loud and clear.

(Oh, I also wrote a response to this, as well.)

vitajex
vitajex

 I'm sorry, but every time I see that profile picture of Kersten, I can't help but think how that blouse looks exactly like the kind of scrubs worn by attendants in nursing homes.

Spinspspin
Spinspspin

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions are a sanction of the state. If separation of church & state is do important then the question should read "will the state recognize same-sex civil unions.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...