Katherine Kersten on liberals, same-sex marriage and life at the Star Tribune
MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley
Columnist Katherine Kersten: “I have a very thick skin.”
First of two articles.
Perhaps no columnist in town raises a liberal's blood pressure more than Katherine Kersten.
For some time I've wondered how Kersten — a columnist for the Star Tribune in various incarnations since 1995, most notably in the metro section, and now in the Sunday opinion pages — feels about being a lightning rod for local liberal rage. So I met with her last week at her Edina home for a two-hour conversation and asked her about liberals and a lot of other subjects.
What follows is the first of two installments from that interview. In this installment, we discussed same-sex marriage, liberal rage and life at the Star Tribune.
But a little background first: Before becoming a columnist, Kersten was a senior fellow for cultural studies at the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis. A founding director of the center, she was its chairman from 1996 to 1998.
Kersten has written on cultural and policy issues for a variety of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Christianity Today, Policy Review, American Enterprise and First Things. She holds a bachelor's degree from Notre Dame, from which she graduated summa cum laude, and a master's degree from Yale. Kersten is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.
Now on to the interview.
MinnPost: You wrote a column recently for the Star Tribune on gay marriage that lit up their switchboard like a Christmas tree. You looked at the issue from an interesting perspective. Care to elaborate?
Katherine Kersten: The question we always hear is: How will same-sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage? That, I think, is the wrong question. You have to ask: How will it change the institution of marriage itself? And how will it change our lives going forward?
Marriage is a universal institution, across the world, through time. It has always involved two people of opposite sexes. The reason the institution came into being is that when a male and a female get together, a baby can be the result. The joining of an egg and a sperm is the only way a human being can come into existence. And, of course, without that, civilization will come to a grinding halt. The purpose of the institution of marriage — the fact that nature requires a mother and a father — there's a reason for that: A child needs the complementary parenting of a mother and a father.
Some of us would like marriage to be a different institution, but it isn't. Some think marriage should be focused not on the perpetuation of society and civilization, but strictly on individual adults — strictly on affirming a relationship between two people who want to be interdependent and who feel affection toward one another.
Marriage is already under such tremendous stress as an institution. We know what's happening to marriage in this country in terms of divorce, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, etc. And when we add to those stresses to the transformation of the institution — the fundamental idea behind it — we essentially cut it loose. The redefinition of marriage will have a snowball effect: People will think to themselves, how is this institution relevant anymore? Why should I go to the hard work of getting married and making a public commitment to another person and to the idea of family, when the institution is essentially meaningless?
Interest in marriage among gay people, particularly gay men, is far less than it is among the heterosexual population. Two thirds of all gay people in legally recognized same-sex unions are lesbians. Which, of course, shows you that there is, in fact, a difference between the sexes.
If we redefine marriage to be an institution focused simply on two people who feel affection toward one another and who want to live interdependently, then, legally, there's absolutely no reason down the line that we shouldn't expect further redefinition — polygamous marriage, for example. Redefining marriage opens a Pandora's box. Why shouldn't a brother and a sister who are dependent on one another, or two female friends, who don't have husbands and who live together and try to share responsibilities for raising kids — why shouldn't the state acknowledge and respect their unions as "marriage"?
The reason, of course, is the central sexual component of marriage. Marriage honors that, holds it up as the means of creating children. This fundamental institution is so critical. Today, we are literally tampering with the foundation of society, and we have no idea where it could lead. As a society, we have an increasing focus on the importance of nature, the importance of natural systems and of ecology. We're learning a lot about the unintended consequences of human actions. Why in the world, then, would we tamper with marriage as our critical, fundamental institution when no one has an idea of where it might end? It doesn't make sense.
MP: Do you anticipate the legalization of same-sex marriage here in Minnesota, or elsewhere in the country? When the issue is put to the voters, it invariably goes down to defeat. Maine was the latest example. To what do you attribute that?
KK: I think there are a number of forces at work here. I think there's the majority of gay people, who intend to live good, ordinary lives, and who don't feel a vindictive loathing of norms and limits in human society.
But then there are people in the "gay rights" leadership — or in the leadership of the same-sex marriage movement — who take a radical view. They want to see an upending of the institution of marriage. I mean, that's very clear. There's lots of evidence that some of these people would like to see, essentially, the end of marriage as an institution altogether. In its place you'd see a variety of civil unions, of the kind I just mentioned.
I've seen so much anger on the part of these people. They often exhibit an authoritarian, totalitarian impulse. We see some of this in the schools, for example, with regard to the Welcoming Schools curriculum that was so controversial recently in Minneapolis. There is an attempt on the part of some of these leaders to place themselves in positions of great power in order to work a transformation in society — having to do with male-female relationships and marriage and families. There's so much anger there, I sometimes think that a lot of those folks are unhappy, frankly, for reasons of how they are living, of choices that they've made, and they project that anger onto people like me.
If you look at my recent column on same-sex marriage, it is very rational, very calm in its tone. It simply presents arguments — arguments, in fact, that the majority of Americans would agree with. If you look at the comments that I got afterward, it was amazing. The vicious, ad hominem comments full of hate-crime-type language that you get from people who are clearly angry and unhappy, but accusing me of being the angry one. It is ridiculous.
MP: Do you get a lot of hate mail?
KK: I get many, many positive and encouraging emails — far more than the vitriolic emails I get.
After my recent same-sex marriage column, for example, I got a blizzard of supportive messages. Among them were a couple of really moving and private emails from gay people who said, "I agree with you, but I wouldn't dare say this to my gay friends."
It was clear to me that these people aren't self-dramatizers — reflexive victims, like many in the gay leadership — and they are being silenced. The shrill tone of the leadership is having a chilling effect in the gay community.
The gay leadership includes many people who tend to want to make a splash, and they are looking for the most public forum possible. So they tend to flood the on-line Star Tribune with comments which can be seen publicly. These folks are waging a political campaign. I've noticed a pattern in their actions. They tend not to send me emails right away. Instead, they jump on the website, right away, get their comments out there in this public, self-dramatizing way, and then the next day they started sending me emails.
MP: How do you feel about being a lightning rod for liberal rage?
KK: I enjoy it! I really do. I have a very thick skin. There are often letters to the paper after my columns appear, and they tend to be weighted toward my opponents' points of view. And you know, I think the more the better. Sometimes the angry responses make my point more effectively than I could. The average reader is pretty sensible and looks at these letters and thinks: "Whoa, this person is over-reacting" or "This person didn't read what she actually wrote."
I suspect that many of the people who attack me in ad hominem terms live surrounded by people who think just the way they do. The tunnel vision of the left is incredible. It's not possible for me to live like that, hearing only one point of view. I read the New York Times and the Star Tribune, and I see CNN on-line. As a result, I can't escape the worldview of the left — what Thomas Sowell calls "the vision of the anointed."
Sowell describes "the anointed" as the intellectual and political elite who believe strongly that they are not only smarter and more able than everybody else, but that they are also better human beings. They see themselves as more virtuous, as having only good intentions — unlike those who disagree with them. If you're surrounded by people like that — as many on the left are — it's hard to get a sense of the complexity of life.
MP: In view of the tumultuous changes at the Star Tribune, how are things going there for you?
KK: It's very different, because now I'm an independent contractor, not a regular employee. So, I'm in the position of, say, a Garrison Keillor. And, of course, [former metro columnist and now opinion pages contributor] Nick Coleman is in that position as well. It's good in the sense that I have completely free rein. The one thing I don't really do anymore is the kind of human-interest stories I tended to do as a metro columnist. I miss those. I really like people, and I did love meeting the extraordinary variety of people I met when I did the metro column.
MP: Have you ever had any column for the editorial pages, or column ideas, rejected?
KK: No, not for the editorial page, no.
MP: And your columns have never been limited in any way?
KK: No.
MP: When you were a metro columnist, how did you feel you were treated in the newsroom?
KK: Well, there are a lot of very nice people at the Star Tribune. And it was helpful for me when I started the metro column to have [former editor-in-chief] Anders Gyllenhaal there as my mentor. Anders saw a role for a person like me. As I explained to him, "You're missing half the stories in Minnesota because your folks here, for whatever reason, tend to see the world pretty much the same way."
The newsroom was an echo chamber of a kind, as is true of most mainstream media. Many of the journalists there have been working in the newsroom for 20 or more years. What that means is that, not only do they tend to be at the same end of the political spectrum, but they often haven't had much interaction with the sort of people I know. I didn't become a journalist until quite recently. As a result, I've spent lots of time with small business people, military people, people trying to make a living in the private sector — you name it. I come from a very different background than most journalists.
People always talk about diversity. Well, in the context of journalism, I'm a good example of what diversity of ideas and background can bring. When you are telling news stories, it can be very helpful to see the world through a different lens. Given my different experience of life, I saw a lot of things other folks in the newsroom didn't see. Before I joined the newsroom, my perspective — and that of people like me — was largely missing.
MP: The newsroom has been characterized by some as left-liberal. Is that accurate?
KK: Oh, yes. Certainly. I would think almost everybody there would agree with that. Somebody who's no longer at the paper, as unfortunately so many are not, told me when I joined the metro staff, sort of whispered to me, "You should have seen this place on the day after Election Day in 2004 [when President George W. Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry]. It was like a tomb, it was like the world had ended," he said. That's not a good thing, especially if you're trying to cover the news objectively.
That said, there are many wonderful people at the Star Tribune. There were many who extended themselves to me and who were friendly. I think it's helpful, too, when you meet someone who represents a point of view that you don't like, but are not exposed to very much — it does humanize the situation. It's really easy to demonize a person you don't know. But then when you meet that person, you see that he or she is a human being like you.
Friday: Kersten on the future of the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the Obama presidency, the shootings at Fort Hood, her world view and the role of religion in her life.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
26 comments
-
21 comments
-
19 comments
Comments (85)
I sympathize with the interviewer not wanting to get off-track and cover a handful of topics, but I continue to believe - even though nobody actually doing the interviewing seems to - that part of being a successful interviewer is stopping the subject when they say something patently false, eg, "Marriage is a universal institution, across the world, through time. It has always involved two people of opposite sexes."
She tries to make her argument sound a little more nuanced then the usual "those homo-sexuals will ruin my straight marriage!" but at the end of the day, it's really the same, and simply leaves me saying, "huh"? She's too vague to be convincing. Gay marriage will "further stress" the "institution of marriage", but there's no "how". Are people going to say, "oh, I'm not interested in this because gays can do it?" I have no sympathy for that person.
She doesn't even bother to respond to the blatantly obvious counter-argument that her definition of marriage excludes people who can't or don't want kids. If you're not going to bother to respond to a strong and typical counter-argument that you must be aware of, you're not even trying to engage in any conversation - it's just spouting the same points over and over with no development.
At this point you'd think she and conservatives would have figured out that gay people are, well, *actually gay* and not just kidding around, and aren't going to marry anyone of the opposite sex. So the best thing she could do to get more people married is open it up. The fact that she doesn't want that exposes her as hateful.
In any case, her 1950s vision of American will disappear as her generation dies off anyways. Half my friends are evil co-habitat ors, and they're perfectly content people who don't seem to have any particular need for marriage, at least not now.
Call me a "liberal rager" if you must, but in her very first answer, in her second paragraph, she states without equivocation this notion that marriage has always been two people, one man one woman.
Its just utterly not true. Never mind various gender mixings in various indigenous cultures, Biblical times were rife with men with multiple wives.
So clearly she starts out - once again, after thoughtful people have repeatedly pointed out her false basis for argument - she starts out with an utterly false premise and is off to the races.
Thanks for interviewing her, I suppose, but I stopped reading as soon as I hit that first big lie.
Seven paragraphs to explain her position on marriage.
Wow, one of the reasons that I quit reading the Strib is haunting me here too. Super.
I think she may have been misquoted. “I have a very thick skin.” shouldn't that be "thick skull?"
I used to read Kersten once in awhile, but eventually concluded that she has nothing worthwhile to say. She is completely predictable. Unlike William F. Buckley, she never comes at an issue in an original way nor backs her biases with even the slimmest veil of research or factual information.
She's simply a hack repeating for a particular audience exactly their own biases. She and those who support her will never allow reality to intrude on their cozy little world built of rumor, innuendo, quarter truth (or less), and outright falsehood.
With that in mind, I did not read this article, nor will I read the follow up. I see no point in wasting my time reading someone who's essays would have received a failing grade in a Freshmen English Composition class at every university across the nation (with the exception, perhaps, of "Liberty" university).
It's too bad she uses such great academic credentials to tout stupidity.
I'm no fan of her either but I wish the interviewer had taken the marriage thing a step further. She doesn't want to grant marriage to gays but would she grant "dometic partnerships" or something similar that would give legal status to gays and maybe others in unconventional, but loving and committed relationships.
This would be, I think, an easy and reasonable step for her if she were willing to cede that many/most/all gays are living with the feelings and orientation that God gave them and that it is good for society to encourage and support them living in exclusive, monogamous relationships
It didn't take long for Tobias, Schubert and Kapphahn to confirm Ms. Kersten/s comments on ad hominem insults.
To what degree are we as citizens aware of the moral principals that we are appealing to? Whether it’s the utilitarian idea, or some conception of individual freedom or some conception of civic virtue and the common good. I think that too often these days our politics does not articulate the moral principals or understanding of justice underlying the policies that we advocate. And I think that is one of the reasons our public discourse is so impoverished.
I think we should be open to the full range of moral resources available that people may bring to bear. Purely secular moral arguments to moral arguments that may be formed by some people and their faith traditions. I think its important when people appeal to religiously informed moral convictions that they try to persuade people who may not share that faith persuasion.
Some religious arguments are dogmatic. Some secular arguments are dogmatic as well. Just listen to the arguments on the floor of the congress everyday. I don't think that those whose views are formed by faith have a monopoly on dogma. Dogma is not a very good contribution to public discourse. But I wouldn't associate it uniquely as some people tend to do with religiously informed moral arguments.
Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation.
Aristotle did not have anything directly to say about same sex marriage nor did most of the philosophers. But the debate over same sex marriage involves competing conceptions of rights. Competing accounts of the relation of moral judgment to law. Competing accounts of what forms of association in family union are worthy of honor and recognition by the wider society. And all the famous philosophers that we look back upon did have powerful views about all those things. About who deserves what? About how we should decide what qualities and virtues are worthy of recognition. What does morality have to do with law? So at the heart of the debates we have from the standpoint of justice, do raise these big questions of principle.
Isn't once a week in the Sunday Paper enough? I agree with most of the posters here. If she'd have some original ideas with more than an inch of depth, she'd be worth reading even if you don't agree with her. But she goes on an on with the same extreme right wing talking points, so most liberals just tune her out.
How is it possible to be that certain about things, yet unable to name a single critic? "These people" are not going after Kersten, "we people" are and we have names.
Kersten is deeply into smearing "the other," because if her angry and sanctimonious rhetoric were directed at individuals, people could weigh both sides. Instead there is Kersten's way, and then there's everyone else lumped under the convenient pronoun "they."
I find myself wondering if MinnPost would have received 158 charitable donations on "GiveMN day" if they had had the guts to publish this hit-job before hand.
If MinnPost wants to be a seriously considered media site, why do they have their self-admitted conservative advocacy journalist - Quite Right - Mr. Bonafield to a puff-piece on a conversative columnist? If non-spin news reporting is all but dead as it seems to me to be, shouldn't advocacy journalism at least try to be challenging? Shouldn't Bonafield be interviewing someone like Nick Coleman, and leave Katherine Kersten to someone who could challenge her POV?
For those who wish that the interviewer would have called out Kersten on her patent falsehoods and logical fallacies need to go back and read some of Bonafield's prior work on Minnpost. This guy makes Kersten look like a legitimate journalist by comparison.
I understand that MinnPost feels the need to offset its perceived liberal bias, but its just sad to see this kind of tripe mixed in with the normally excellent writing here. Why not have David Brauer or Eric Black interview Kersten? That might have produced something worthwhile. I can read this kind of thing in the Star Tribune.
Leftists are loath to admit it, but as our democratic process has proved beyond all doubt, in the matter of homosexuality Katherine speaks for the overwhelming majority of Americans.
I'm with Mr. Hintz -- this profile done by someone with sufficient gravitas and intelligence, and in this case I would nominate Mr. Black, would have been a lot more interesting. Frankly, this sophomoric effort is not fitting of Minnpost.
Oh, and by the way; given the rapacious incivility of the opposing fringe, the majority would be hard pressed to find a more articulate, gracious voice to speak for us.
Katherine is an embodiment of the successful legacy of Phi Beta Kappa.
Thanks for bringing SOMETHING conservative to MinnPost.
You commenters crack me up. All you do is prove Kersten's points. Plus, all you prove is that MinnPost is written by and read by liberals. You get SOOOO angry when there is anything remotely conservative on the site.
I wonder how many of you stretch yourselves and read the WSJ opinion pages, or something similar? Or is Kersten right that all of you liberals only surround yourself with like-minded people?
The idea of having liberals like Brauer or Black interview Kersten is a good one. Why did it take the once-a-month conservative columnist to do it? Brauer and Black have had plenty of opportunities.
And when will MinnPost hire full-time conservative writers to interview the liberal newsmakers that populate this site?
Liberal rage? Liberal disgust would be a more apt label. Why does anyone give Kersten a platform for her vapid and dishonest screeds. She consistently misrepresents the facts (out of blatant dishonesty or willful ignorance?) while maintaining a tone of smug superiority. I am very disappointed that MinnPost chose to give her more undeserved attention.
Whatever comments Ms. Kersten receives from liberal and leftist critics, one has to look at the comments that Nick Coleman receives on the Strib website.
I rarely read Ms. Kersten's column, but when I do, the commentators are usually attacking her facts or her interpretation of the facts.
Nick Coleman seems to be lightning rod for vicious ad hominem attacks from the right. The commentators don't attack Coleman's facts; they just hurl insults that sound like verbatim transcripts of Glenn Beck's rants. They are so worked up about him that they accuse him of being a "Communist fascist" (proof that they don't know what either word means) even when he writes about non-political topics.
On the whole, Kersten has it easy. She has at least as many adoring fans as critics, and her critics include a smaller percentage of rabid illiterates than Coleman's critics do.
Nice article, she gave straight, honest answers. That is something our politicians need to learn, then we might trust them and not call then losers it builds a good reputation that is hard to earn.
So, Kersten believes that marriage should be between men and women exclusively because of nature's law, i.e., sperm + egg = baby.
A true journalist would have stopped her then and there and asked Kersten if she thinks sterile M-F couples should be allowed to marry.
I mean, if they can't produce a baby -- the seminal (pun intended) reason for the institution of marriage according to Kersten -- then aren't they diluting the true meaning of marriage just as much as a same-sex couple who also lack the sperm + egg = baby ability?
And, as others have pointed out, a competent interviewer should have stopped her plenty of times previously, and called her out on the several falsehoods on which she bases her opinions.
And it's typical that when the letters to the editor that follow her columns point out that she has based her opinions on faulty assumptions, she cries "Ad hominum attack"!
Infertile couples can adopt...many (most?) do; Mission Accomplished.
"Oh, and by the way; given the rapacious incivility of the opposing fringe,..."
This is rich. Mr. Swift has the gall to complain about "rapacious incivility?"
Satire, David...sacred satire. Good, clean fun.
Tired of the conservatives whining about how angry liberals exclude their thought. It is just entirely ALSO true that in conservative media and in MOST conservative writings, the left-liberals are completely shut out, ridiculed, and RAGED AT by conservatives.
It's hilarious to see to conservatives clucking together about how oppressed they are by libs. HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!
I'm NOT a lib, either!!
Mr. Swift--
Gay couples also can (and do, where legal) adopt, with equally good results.
"Liberal rage" is a conservative talking point. What's at issue here is human rage, having nothing much to do with politics (though we have had it wedged up the wazoo by the right) and everything to do with compassion and the human condition.
Remember the "compassionate conservative" meme? The radical right is fond of labels that mean nothing. They are incendiary devices, intended only and always to injure the left. There is no substance to these talking points whatsoever.
Is there such a thing as a compassionate conservative? Yes. But they have become an endangered species. The game that's afoot in this decade is to shout down civility. And civility used to be the hallmark of the left. But in order to be heard over the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Palin, Bachmann, Kersten, etc., it has become necessary to shout back, ratcheting up the rancor.
I would like to believe that the radical right hasn't lost its collective mind (thank you, Charles Barkley), but evidence points suggests that may be so.
And about the Star Tribune being a liberal publication in this era of desperate pandering to advertisers and big money? I think not.
"Gay couples also can (and do, where legal) adopt, with equally good results."
That's one story. Plenty of studies say not so much.
Usually comes down to what one is willing to accept as "good" as opposed to "better than nothing". Even that's not settled.
The gays want to destroy marriage by getting married...
I wonder if this logic was at work when Kersten found religion. Maybe she's trying to destroy Christianity from the inside. Keep up the good work, Katherine!
My favorite part:
MP: How do you feel about being a lightning rod for liberal rage?
KK: I enjoy it! I really do.
Of course she does. Without it, she would have no job.
The saddest part of this story is that the Strib, knowing full well that Kersten's arguments are either absurd, based brazenly on falsehoods, or both, still keeps her on the payroll. That she is simply a parrot should be enough to dispense with her as a columnist. (Yes, her presence -- and Coleman's -- is yet another reason why I reluctantly stopped my subscription to the newspaper. It's talk radio in print form.)
My only hope is that somewhere some teacher of logic is having students dissect Kersten's writing/thinking to learn just how it is that fallacies can be so seductive and deceptive (and difficult to detect).
And I hope that some teacher of journalism is making students try to verify her various historical claims to understand that half-truths and non-truths must be outed rather than allowed to pass for The Truth.
And I hope that some theology professor is making students dig into the wide variety of opinion found in sacred texts (especially the Bible) regarding the social issues Kersten portrays as settled.
In this way, Kerten's work could be of value in so many fields: biology, sociology, reproductive medicine, even the learning of the scientific method.
If only we as a society could tap this resource, modern popular thinking and reasoning might actually be advanced beyond what this article takes as a given: the perpetual and regrettable Battle of Simplified and Labeled Ideologies.
This was about as illuminating as watching Bill O'Reilly interview Sean Hannity. "How do you feel about being a lightning rod for commie pinko sympathizer rage?" "It would be a burden were my opinions not so cogent and the factual premises upon which they rely so inviolable."
"The gays want to destroy marriage by getting married..."
Not only is that a distortion of what Kerstin actually said, she says exactly the opposite:
"Interest in marriage among gay people, particularly gay men, is far less than it is among the heterosexual population."
Kerstin says it's the devaluation of marriage the radicals are after, not the inclusion.
Another a victim to lack of comprehension:
"in her second paragraph, she states without equivocation this notion that marriage has always been two people, one man one woman."
Actually, she says that marriage has always *included* two people of differing genders.
Since I'm quite sure Notre Dame's summa cum laude graduates are quite aware of our polygamous history I think the thoughtful reader is safe to assume she meant marriage has always included *at least* two people of differing genders.
Katherine also said she gets responses suggesting "This person didn't read what she actually wrote."
Perhaps a re-reading of the piece at hand is in order for some.
Thomas Swift says: "Leftists are loath to admit it, but as our democratic process has proved beyond all doubt, in the matter of homosexuality Katherine speaks for the overwhelming majority of Americans. "
Once the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed with the ideas of the Klu Klux Klan concerning the humanity of black people, a point that rightists "are loath to admit". Once the overwhelming majority of Christians thought Jews should be burned or converted, a point that rightists "are loath to admit".
That little point aside, and I almost always side with the liberals in political discussions, but I think the near-universal vituperative response here is pathetic. You prove her point.
I'm glad Minnpost has this contrarian here. I don't agree but I enjoy the contrast and I can read her seriously hoping to see something I can agree with.
The problem I have with Kersten is she speaks in her articles only to those who already agree with her. There is no effort to persuade those who would start out disagreeing with her. I see most here will never be persuaded but it is the fault of both sides of the debate that they strive only to convince themselves and not look for common ground. Hence my point in an earlier post that I wish he had asked if she would agree to domestic partnerships for nontraditional households.
This idea that the people fighting for marriage equality are radicals who are rabid and angry is just not supported by the facts.
Oh, sure, you can find bloggers who foam at the mouth. But they are not actually doing the work of marriage equality.
Come to Bloomington some Sunday morning and meet the sweet, married, gray-haired grandmothers at Minnesota Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.
They're working hard for equality for LGBT people. And they don't embody ANY of the characteristics KK smears marriage activists with.
It is because KK can hold us all apart as other that she can claim all these smear-filled characterizations of marriage equality activists.
The movement includes countless people of good will and who see the redemptive power of inclusive love. I sure don't feel redeemed by Kersten's scornful descriptions of activists she doesn't even know.
Señor Swift:
To quote the lady herself:
"But then there are people in the 'gay rights' leadership — or in the leadership of the same-sex marriage movement — who take a radical view. They want to see an upending of the institution of marriage. I mean, that's very clear. There's lots of evidence that some of these people would like to see, essentially, the end of marriage as an institution altogether."
Boil that down and tell me how it doesn't sound like "The gays want to destroy marriage by getting married..."
So... um... Thomas Swift is backing Kersten's argument that if marriage was always some particular way, it should remain that way... and then clarified that she means "at least two people of differing genders".
I'm left to believe that Mr. Swift is advocating polyamory.
This piece was nothing more than another Kersten column. Sad to see it on MinnPost.
As a mother who dearly loves her gay son, I am so weary of Kersten's tired old rhetoric against the gay community.
Truth will triumph in the end but it is sad MinnPost doesn't understand the pain felt by so many dear people whenever Kersten is the given the opportunity to speak.
Actually, Bill, at no time did even a simple majority of Americans subscribe to the KKK's philosophy...you might remember a little thing we called the civil war?
But to your larger point.
Concerning human rights, when you can convince anything nearing a majority of people that a behavior is like skin pigment you'll be on a roll.
Best of luck.
Its bad enough with having to put up with her bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia in the StarTrib, but now you, The MinnPost give her a platform to spew more of her hate. And to give her two days to do it in is the pits.
Bradley, it doesn't sound like that because it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that because that's not what Kerstin wishes to convey.
(sigh) Look.
Kerstin says, explicitly says, that homosexuals are not really interested in "getting married"; they want to distort and destroy marriage.
Are you so intimidated that you'd rather invent something than read the actual text?
And if you'd care to look at the statistics from states that have had "gay marriage" foisted upon them by the courts or legislatures (no state has legalized "gay marriage" through the will of the people), you'd find plenty of evidence to prove her right....they're not getting married where they can.
Thomas,
Considering that the early anti-gay marriage amendments passed with +60% of the votes, and that California and Maine passed theirs with only 52% and 53%, the marriage equality side is well on their way. Remember too that Washington state just passed an "all but the name" civil union bill.
um... mr. swift, when you discover that being gay goes far beyond 'behavior' perhaps you'd like to join us here in the 21st century.
If the Strib was Fox News, Garrison Keillor would play Hannity - the dominant view, well-articulated - and Kersten would play Coombs - the utterly invisible spokesperson for the other view - that WAS the invisible guy's name, correct?
Kersten makes assertions about the history of marriage and the beliefs of liberals that are knowably false. That is frustrating, rude and has the effect of killing intelligent conversation.
Her impressive educational credentials have not helped her critical thinking skills enough in my view.
Bradley, sexual relations are a behavior.
If you can name one, just one trait, that defines homosexuality other than the desire to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex, I will admit that gay rights are equivalent with "human rights" in the broader sense.
Going to church is a behavior but for some reason we're pretty comfortable with "religious rights" and not only grant complete equality for religious actions (eg, religious speech) but have all sorts of special rights and exceptions for religious behavior (eg, certain types of drug use).
But anyways. It's true that that desire is defining, but the point is that it stems from an immutable place inside a person and appears to have significant genetic components.
And so what if it didn't? I don't think the question about "choice" or "not choice" - basically meaningless in this context anyways - matters at all. Because only the most selfish and meddling person tries to deny things to others than will do them no harm by making them available. You'd think a conservative would be the first to put "liberty" and "freedom" above all else - or at least they pretend they do. Isn't part of freedom giving people maximum possibilities so long as they don't infringe on your own? Ha! If anyone's guilty of "social engineering", it's conservatives, not liberals.
Very well put
I thought conservatives would not be about interfering in your personal life. Of course, I also thought they would be about 'conservation'.
Rick Prescott, in his litany of Kersten's potential contributions to college curricula, forgot to mention a hope that some psychology professor is using this interview to illustrate a really advanced case of projection.
thomas, being gay is about loving someone of the same gender. love is not sex.
where should i send your 'i support gay rights' t-shirt?
You're right, Jeff. We do many things to encourage some behaviors, and we do things to discourage others. And yes, it is nothing less than social engineering.
Given that, the truthful point of the "gay rights" argument is most succinctly "do we wish to encourage homosexual behavior"?
I'm all for having a thoughtful debate on the pro and con of that question, unfortunately most leftists are not ready to be honest enough with themselves or anyone else to engage that one.
I give you credit for at least confronting the obvious starting point.