Katherine Kersten Gets Letters

In the Star Tribune:

KERSTEN ON GAY MARRIAGE

A fine propagandist

Katherine Kersten's July 13 column, "Pay attention to New York court on same-sex marriage," is a beautiful study in propaganda writing.

"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision compelling same-sex marriage ..." Compelling? Does that mean that the court decision requires that all gays be married? Gee, I don't think even the Massachusetts court went that far.

"New York will impose gay marriage ..." Impose? Impose on whom? The court could have ruled that gays may get married if they want to, not that they must. It's a big difference.

I think she's using words like these to inflame her fans, and while she's entitled to her own opinions, she not entitled to her own facts.

DAVID PERLMAN, NEW HOPE

Live and let live

No one is imposing gay marriage on Katherine Kersten or her children. She is free to live all her days in her own heterosexual world.

But she must understand there is a real world that includes others.

For those of us in the real world who have loved ones we cherish who happen to be gay, we long for the day they live in equality. Simple equality.

RANDI REITAN, EDEN PRAIRIE

Katherine Kersten: I'm So Happy I Almost Peed

Katherine Kersten is really happy. She's ecstatic that the New York Court of Appeals decided that same-sex couples do not have a right to marriage. She even wrote about it: "Pay attention to New York court on same-sex marriage"

Kersten says, "the Court of Appeals defied expectations, sending a shock wave across the country." Disappointment? Yes. A Shockwave? No, not really.

Katherine Kersten: "First, said the court, the state can treat heterosexual and homosexual couples differently because they are, in fact, different. 'Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children,' the court pointed out, while 'homosexual intercourse does not.'"

This, of course, assumes that all 'homosexuals' engage in 'homosexual intercourse' exclusively. There are many, many, many children of LGBT people that resulted from heterosex before the 'homosexual' came out of the closet. The same closet that Katherine Kersten spends her time reinforcing, is the same closet that encourages LGBT people to 'play straight' and make babies.

Katherine Kersten says: "Second, a legislature can adopt the 'common-sense premise' that children will do best with a mother and father in the home. 'Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like,' wrote the court."

The court did use those words, but they also went on to say: "These [same-sex] couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only."

So, the court basically says that because more heterosexuals are bad parents, NY needs to make their marriages stronger. It doesn't make too much sense, but at least they admit that it's the heterosexuals that are creating unstable environments for children, not same-sex couples, which they follow up with this statement:

"The Legislature could also find that such [opposite sex] relationships are all too often casual or temporary."

Plus, should courts really be using 'intuition'?

Katherine Kersten says: "Finally, the court rejected the oft-heard claim that laws limiting marriage to male-female couples are akin to racial bigotry. Laws barring interracial marriage were a by-product of historical injustice, it said. Marriage between a man and a woman -- 'an accepted truth for almost everyone who has ever lived' -- is not."

There have been no historical injustices against LGBT people? Whew! We can all sleep better at night. Oh, wait. In a bigots mind, there aren't really LGBT people anyway, only perverts, so it's understandable that Kersten can ignore history.

Katherine Kersten and Polygamy

Yesterday, Katherine Kersten replayed the tired old argument that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy.

I could go on and on about why she's wrong, but fortunately a ton of bloggers and letters to the editor already have:

Washington Syndrome: Arguing from Polygamy

Midtopia: Tired Arguments, Lousy Logic

Great Plains View: And Then Comes Animal Marriage

American Idle: First Katherine Came for the Gays..

Norwegianity: Clarence Thomas Does Utah

Minnesota Politics: Katherine Kersten's Korner

And the letters to the editor are after the jump...

KERSTEN TAKES AIM

Ludicrousness alert

In her March 16 column, Katherine Kersten has trotted out the "But Wait" argument against same-sex unions: But wait, if we let this happen then we'll have to allow polygamy and all other forms of union. Marriage between men and turtles won't be far behind! God save the turtles!!

The "But Wait" argument can go the other way, too: But wait, if we discriminate against gays and lesbians in terms of marriage perhaps we can eventually legislate them back into being criminals. I know there are some folks down in Kansas who would like to please God in this manner. But wait, we could stone them to death; that would save marriage for the good people.

MAX HAYNES, MAPLE GROVE

Bias at the core

Once again Katherine Kersten's argument doesn't hold water. First, her worry that polygamy will be easily debated and fought in court after the legalization of same-sex marriage is without merit, since any person who chooses to fight for polygamy is doing so on the grounds that marriage is discriminatory based on its two-person inclusion. Therefore, marital law of one man and one woman will also violate this inclusion, which proves same-sex marriage and polygamy are not the same debate.

Second, it's clear that Kersten is not truly concerned with marital law; rather, she believes that gay men and women do not deserve the inclusion of any rights guaranteed by birth -- marital or otherwise. Her comment that a movie was only produced as an agenda to "normalize" same-sex attraction proves she does not accept gay men and women as productive, intelligent, faithful, educated, taxpaying members of society.

KELLY KOHLBACHER, MINNEAPOLIS

It's all contractual

Katherine Kersten and others talk out of both sides of their mouths, claiming that "one man-one woman" is the way God intended marriage, but also insisting on using the government, contract-based definition to enforce that.

Kersten's warning against what may happen could actually solve the entire problem. If she and the religious zealots on her side of the debate would finally realize that marriage is simply a contract-based system of government-registered regulations, perhaps the debate would end. Kersten seems to miss the fact that the function of marriage, as with any contract, is to provide the ability to plan for unexpected occurrences and to bind two parties to certain rights and obligations (or, if we're being honest, to bind the female party as the man's property, as marriage laws were initially intended to do).

No supporter of same-sex marriage has ever argued that religious organizations should be forced to perform ceremonies against their wills, primarily because these ceremonies have no effect in the eyes of the law. If we could leave God and nature out of the argument when speaking of constitutional amendments and laws, and recognize that we're all speaking of government-regulated contracts between two consenting adults, perhaps the argument could be a little less muddled.

KATHY DAVIS, MINNEAPOLIS [Link]

Oh, Katherine Kersten

The Star Tribune's worst columnist wastes no time by throwing her 2 cents into the same-sex marriage slop bucket. She says, "People of Minnesota, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and some DFLers are scared to death of you." That 'you', of course, is anyone who would vote to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

Her first mistake is grossly misleading the audience. The debate here is not whether to legalize same-sex marriage. It's already illegal and backed up by a Minnesota Supreme Court decision. The debate is whether or not to enshrine an end to domestic partnerships enjoyed by tax-paying gays and lesbians employed by local communities and universities and colleges, and whether or not to back up two layers of already established law against civil unions and same-sex marriage. Her scare tactics are getting kind of thin.

Then, she tries to poke holes in anti-amendment arguments. When reasonable people point out that same-sex marriage is already illegal, she pulls out the 'activist judge' card: "Activist state courts can throw out a Defense of Marriage law like Minnesota's as discriminatory, unless it is backed up by a similar provision in the state constitution." This is somewhat misleading, since she leaves out the part that the Minnesota Supreme Court already ruled 7-0 that same-sex marriage is illegal in Minnesota.

Then she says it's ok that the issue is divisive because "the Civil War, the struggle for women's suffrage" were both divisive but important battles. But those two movements ended with an extension of rights, Katherine. Quite the opposite of what you're advocating.

"Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will erode expectations that children need both a mom and a dad, and that the mom and dad should be married. Our inner cities are reeling from the disastrous consequences of abandoning these ideas." And now she's REALLY stretching. If same-sex marriage were legal then many more moms and dads would be married. And I have yet to fathom how GLBT people havve anything to do with the problems of inner cities.

Finally, I wonder why Katherine wants to 'radically change' our constitution. This 'drastic' change would prevent any further debate on the merits of same-sex marriage. With the current wording, there could be 'serious and unintended consequences' to the current legal arrangements of both same-sex couples, and opposite sex couples. 'The long-term consequences' of this amendment 'are unknown and potentially disastrous.' See, I can use the same scary words as you, Katherine.

Kersten's Defense

Katherine Kersten's column today tries to defend herself from that huge amount of criticism generated by her factually questionable column last week supporting an amendment to the constitution that would wipe out domestic partnerships and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

"While name-calling of all sorts has increased, a particularly powerful variation has evolved in recent years. Call it the "nuclear option" of public debate. This tactic tries to lay claim to the language of civil rights, with its concepts of prejudice and bigotry. Words like "bigot" carry a real moral wallop because of America's legacy of racial injustice. As a result, people are sometimes tempted to use such words to silence their opponents."

Oh my! What if Kersten reads my blog? I did call her a bigot, like twice, in my post titled "Katherine Kersten: Don't Take Away My Right to Be a Bigot."

"BIGOT, one obstinately and intolerantly holding particular religious opinions, who refuses to listen to reason and is ready to force others to agree with him; hence also applied to one who holds similar views on any subject. The early meaning of the word in English, at the end of the 16th century, was that of a religious hypocrite." [Link]

Or

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." [Link]

Now, if Kersten and other amendment supporters were interested in 'preserving marriage' they would be attacking no-fault divorces, adultery, and maybe supporting some kind of state sponsored marriage counseling. But they never mention any of these. Their real problem is with gays and lesbians. And it's rooted in their specific brand of religion, as Kersten admits in her column today: "You know that I'm a Christian and notice some religious themes in my arguments. You conclude that I'm a bigot, because Christianity embraces some ideas you don't like."

I certainly don't want to silence Katherine Kersten. Let her spout her anti-gay brand of religious theocracy from the mountaintops. But everytime she writes this trash, she better expect some strong emotions. Also, if Kersten wants rational debate, perhaps she should stop distorting facts in order to demonize GLBT people and our relationships. See the Katherine Kersten Archives for a good run-down on how she's done this several times over the past 6 months.

Katherine Kersten: Anti-gay Columnists Need to Lie

Oopsy! Katherine Kersten inability to do rudimentary research forced the Star Tribune to run a correction about her last column. How embarrassing for her:

"CLARIFICATION

In a column on Page B1 Monday about the debate over same-sex marriage in Canada, Katherine Kersten described discipline imposed on a British Columbia teacher and a human rights complaint filed against a Roman Catholic bishop. Both had expressed general disapproval of homosexual behavior while supporting traditional male-female marriage. While much of the column dealt with events in recent months, the charges against the teacher were filed in 2001."

Which begs the question: Why do supporters of the amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage in Minnesota need to make things up? Don't Minnesotans deserve the truth? Or maybe if they new the truth, they wouldn't even think about amending the constitution with a law that already exists. Think that make you go "hmmm."

Katherine Kersten: Don't Take Away My Right to Be a Bigot

Katherine Kersten is scared. Canada legalized same-sex marriage and it became a little harder for bad people up north to maintain their outright bigotry. Using examples that don't really support her argument, she tries to ague that once same-sex marriage is legalized in Minnesota, the thought police will come to take her away for being a bigot. While the thought of that scenario makes me grin just a little, that's not the kind of society I want to live in. She can be a bigot all she wants, and I can keep pointing out how thoughless her writing is, and how hateful it is.

Her fears are completely unfounded. Freedom of speech is very broad in the US compared to Canada. You can still be a racist, or a nazi if you want to in the US. The KKK is an obvious example that, in the United States, you can hate as much and as vocally as you want. The rest of us also have the right to counter your speech.

So, a Canadian-American comparison doesn't quite work. Also, as a letter to the editor today points out, Kersten gets her facts wrong. One of the people who got into trouble in Canada wasn't scolded because he promoted "traditional marriage", it was for saying that gay people are evil. (I personally think he should have that right, but Canadians don't, and it's their country they can do what they want.) Kersten tries to make it sound like this guy was just a happy, tolerant person who was merely pointing out the benefits of "traditional marriage," but it's not the truth.

She also provides an example of a teacher who was put on a month suspension without pay after the school he worked for found his letters condemning gays in local newspapers. He insinuated that if gay students came to him for counseling, he would refer them to ex-gay ministries. All of this happened before same-sex marriage became legal in Canada, a detail that either Kersten didn't bother to research, or she intentionally left out to create false support for her argument.

Kersten will always be able to write bad things about gay people, even when same-sex marriage is leagl in Minnesota, although pretty soon no major newspaper will print her dishonest, gay-bashing garbage.

Heterosexuals Ruined Traditional Marriage

Stephanie Coontz has an editorial in the New York Times today that is a must read for Sen. Michele Bachmann and Strib 'columnist' Katherine Kersten. Coontz basically lays our why heterosexual activists Bachmann and Kersten are to blame for the radical redefinition of marriage:

"Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too."

Bachmann and Kersten, with their high profile political, heterosexual activist agenda are subverting marriage. They should be at home with the kids, and cooking and cleaning and stuff. Of course, we've all seen Bachmann vaccuuming in high heels in the Strib. But there is no way that she can do all of her womanly duties and work at the Capitol too, without destroying marriage.

But Rick Santorum has it right! He really is defending traditional marriage. Bachmann and Kersten should be ashamed of themselves, according to Santorum's new book, "It Takes a Family." From excerpts from his book at CapitolBuzz:

Keep The Mom At Home: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home." (It Takes a Family, 94)

Thanks Gloria Steinem: "Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." (It Takes a Family, 95)

Who Needs College? "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." (It Takes a Family, 13)

Why do Bachmann and Kersten hate traditional marriage, and more importantly, now that we know that they both are to blame for the radical redefinition of marriage, why do they hate gays and lesbians?

Katherine Kersten in Mpls-St. Paul Magazine

I'm still in the mood to pick on Katherine Kersten, as long as she's still picking on the gays, which she is in the July issue of Minneapolis-St. Paul Magazine. She did an interview with Steve Marsh and she was wearing what Minnesota Observer at Norwegianity calls "one of those flowered, shapeless, frumpy housedresses the old lady next door wears!"

SM: How has journalism fallen so low in the public's esteem?

KK: People like me looked at media during the last presidential election, and it was obvious that most newspapers had moved beyond objective reporting to actual promotion of John Kerry. Most major newspapers are 100 percent behind gay marriage. Look at the photographs that run alongside the stories: You see children that are overjoyed with life. It’s over the top!

(EAS: Children that are overjoyed with life are over the top for Katherine. Heaven forbid that gay families can actually raise happy children. Why does Katherine hate happy children?)

SM: You talked about the Red State–Blue State divide. How is it manifest in Minnesota?

KK: Look at which counties [vote] red and blue. It’s analogous to the national scene. The center of power, where the media originates and where politics are run, tends to be blue, with everybody else red. Many Minnesotans feel they have very little voice. They scan the pages of the newspaper, they turn on the TV, and feel shut out. They do not see themselves and their views taken seriously. They are lampooned and caricatured as red-neck Christians. Anybody who has questions about same-sex marriage is [portrayed as] bigoted.

(EAS: I have a question about same-sex marriage, Katherine. Why are you so obsessed with shoving your pseudo-religious political agenda down my throat and dictating who I can or cannot marry? Oops! Does that question make me a bigot?)

Katherine Kersten and Godwin's Law

Most people can reasonably argue their point without invoking Hitler or Nazi's, which is why most people are better conservative colunmists than Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune.

On June 16, Kersten's editorial equates most Americans feelings about the Shiavo case to Nazi policies. The majority of Americans do not want the federal government intervening in the fates of their loved ones, and feel that living wills and next of kin should make the decision on whether or not to remove life support in the case of terminal illness. According to Kersten, this puts our society on a slippery slope to Nazi fascism.

Kersten's writing is an example of Godwin's law in editorial form.

Interestingly, this week Kersten takes issue with Sen. Durbin's comparison of US torture tactics to Nazi's. Maybe she forgot that just 2 weeks ago, she was comparing those who object to government interference in family medical matters to Nazi's.

Personally, I think it's cliche and in poor taste to compare anyone to Nazi's except for Nazi's themselves. And following Godwin's Law, it effectively ends any rational argument, and is unbecoming of a major newspaper columnist.

Conservative "columnist" defends Michele Bachmann

Katherine Kersten should not be a colunmist for the Star Tribune. Her latest attempt at a reasoned argument has her defending Senator Michele Bachmann and insisting that segments of the GLBT community need to be more tolerant of Minnesota's Taliban-esque legislators.

Katherine is so dissappointed in the bloggers and activists in the GLBT community who have demonized, DEMONIZED Senator Bachmann. Katherine writes:

"The tactics employed by some of Bachman's opponents pose a real danger to our democratic process, which requires open and civil debate to thrive. In Bachmann's view, "the tendency to demonize opponents reduces our public discourse to the level of pie-throwing."

Demonization of the sort she has endured, she says, 'undercuts our ability to discuss issues intelligently. It encourages us to caricature opponents on a personal basis, instead of grappling with their ideas.'"

Hmmm. How about this one? In Senator Bachmann's own words:

"This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever because the immediate consequence if gay marriage goes through is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it. And this will take away the civil right of little children to be protected in their innocence. ...

This is a very serious matter because it's our children that are the prize for this community. They are specifically targetting our children. ...

But should we allow them to teach sinful ways to our children in the public schools? Should that be allowed? ..."

Who is demonizing whom? Senator Bachmann demonizes the GLBT community every time she introduces the Marriage Amendment, and every time she talks about it. Kersten is a hack.

Here's another bit from her 'column.'

"The Scandia incident exemplifies the double standard at work in our political process. Imagine how different the reaction would have been had a crowd of "fundamentalist Christians" blocked a gay activist's exit from a bathroom. We'd still be reading outraged headlines."

For background on what she's writing about, see DumpBachmann here. The difference, Katherine, is that fundamentalist Christians have been beating the shit out of GLBT people for a long time, both physically and psychologically, and there are more of them than us.

Senator Bachmann is only a victim of her own making. This written ass-kiss by Kersten is an attempt to paint Bachmann as a victim, and is further proof that the Star Tribune could not have picked a worse columnist.

Addendum: I'm not trying to say that the Star Tribune should not have picked a conservative columnist. I'm saying that the Star Tribune should not have picked Kersten. Tomorrow, I'll elaborate.

Conservatives on gay marriage...not always what you'd expect

Katherine Kersten, the Star Tribune's new conservative columnist, throws her 2 cents into the same-sex marriage debate. She doesn't do a very good job.

Other than taking a few jabs at liberals and Minnesota DFL, she simply regurgitates the talking points of anti-gay marriage amendment proponents.

She also tries to insinuate that same-sex marriage is legal in Scandinavia. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have laws that resemble civil unions. Gay and lesbian couples have rights in those countries much in the way they do in Vermont, not Massachusettes. Same-sex marriage does not exist in these countries.

"If same-sex marriage prevails, I suspect we'll see both a decline in marriage and an upsurge in out-of-wedlock births, as Scandinavia has."

Katherine's statement is unsupported by the facts, and that same statement wasn't supported by the facts when Stanley Kurtz made it a year ago. Professor M.V. Lee Badgett last year in the Slate:

"Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged."

Further, Katherine misses the mark from the conservative point of view. Conservative blogger Craig Westover picks her column apart, and shows what he calls an 'inverse liberal' argument. He also makes some very intriguing points:

"If social science tells us that “kids with a married mom and dad have the best chance of flourishing on every conceivable measure, from avoiding juvenile delinquency and out-of-wedlock births to forming successful marriages themselves,” then what does it tell us about kids that are denied married parents because the parents are of the same gender? They may not have the "best chance," but wouldn't they have a "better chance" than children whose parents weren't married?"

Craig basically says that stable families are good for society, and unless we are going to take the cruel step of removing children from their gay parents and assigning them to opposite-sex couples, then we should extend some of the rights of marriage that stabilize opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples. Stable families are good for society whether gay or straight.

Unlike Katherine Kersten, Craig Westover presents a rational conservative position on same-sex marriage.