I saw the following story on the Minnesota Independent this morning and being a Minnesota native myself, I felt moved to respond: White on same-sex marriage: Rosa Parks didn’t ‘move to the front of the bus to support sodomy’

“For the first time in Minnesota history, a legislative committee contemplated the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state on Monday.” About time, I’d say. And it’s a shame that Minnesota’s political landscape has been dirtied by the reprehensible beliefs of a small group of narrow-minded Christian bigots.

It wasn’t that way when I left – good Scandinavian pragmatism still had some meaning then – but now the ideologues are out in full force, spewing bile and hate everywhere they go. Case in point: In response to  “moving testimony” by LGBT families about “the hardships their families face because they cannot marry,” a pair of these bigots – congressional candidates both, I’m saddened to admit, had this to say:

Barb Davis White, a Tea Party activist and Republican candidate for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, prompted shocked gasps from the packed hearing room when she said, “Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.” Her testimony involved accusations that the movement for marriage equality is hijacking the civil rights movement.

“There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color when there’s a tremendous difference between a man and a woman,” said White, who was the GOP’s endorsed candidate against Rep. Keith Ellison in 2008.

I’m impressed that she noticed, given the well known fear extremist Christians have of sexuality and the human body. But really, that there is a significant difference between men and women has no meaning beyond that which she gives it by way of her myopic and close-minded view of gender and gender roles.

She stated that “Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing two men or two women to marry would fundamentally change that definition.”

No, in point of fact, it would not. Marriage is between two people who love each other and wish to formalize their union. It makes no difference what the genders of the couple are. Love, I submit, is love. And rights, Ms. White, are rights. And the Constitution does not have any exclusionary clauses with regard to rights.

“White also garnered some laughs from the audience when she said, “Studies also show that the average homosexual has hundreds of sexual partners in his lifetime… and I repeat hundreds.””

Let’s be perfectly honest and direct here: this is something extremist Christians like to say. Like children who think they’re on to something clever, they will repeat it at every opportunity.

But here is the important point: It has no basis in fact. She has no studies to prove that gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than any pastor’s daughter.

And here is where Barb White stands up and testifies to all, “I am a narrow-minded and intolerant bigot”: “I’m here today to tell you that homosexuality and lesbian behavior is unhealthy,” claiming that gays and lesbians have higher rates of STDs than anyone else in the world, including, she asserts, “gay bowel disease,” an ailment the author of the article correctly points out that does not exist but which “is often used by religious right figures to paint gay men as diseased.”

I would like to submit this thought to Ms. White (since you seem to have few of your own): it is irrelevant how promiscuous a person is – it’s none of your damned business. It has nothing to do with their right to get married, or do you intend to impose a “promiscuity test” for marriage candidates – across the board, straight and LGBT? If you sleep around you lose your marriage rights? After all, if promiscuity is the issue, you have to apply the standard equally.

But as I said above, there were two congressional candidates exposing their bigotry at this gathering. The other nitwit adding her voice to the hatefest was St. Thomas University law professor Teresa Stanton Collett, “who is running as a Republican for the 4th Congressional District, warned that Minnesota’s Christians are under attack.” Teresa Collett is proof positive that you can get a college degree and still be as dumb as a box of hammers.

Christians under attack? It is difficult to see how this can be so, since Christianity doesn’t enter into the equation. The only people being attacked are those who are different from Ms. Collett: in other words, the LGBT community. I don’t know of any LGBT couple saying she should lose her rights because she is a Christian, or that Christianity should be outlawed.I don’t know of any bans being imposed (or even suggested) against Christianity or Christian belief. Ms. Collett’s beliefs are not being imposed on in any way. If you believe it’s wrong, don’t do it. It’s really as easy as that.

But let’s give this hate monger an opportunity to display her low thinking:

“Make no mistake: Marriage, as a civil institution, as a legal institution, is grounded not merely in religion but also in the biological reality that sex makes children and children need a mom and a dad,” she said. “And should we choose to redefine that legally we will put the religious and moral beliefs of all Minnesotans at issue.”

This is not much of an argument. All Minnesotans? She’s wrong about that. Not every Minnesotan is a narrow-minded bigot like her. But she is right that marriage is a civil, not a religious, institution, but she is also wrong because it is not historically grounded in religion. Her god did not invent the institution of marriage and has no exclusive rights to it.

Further, I would like to point out to Ms. Collett that the Bible presents all sorts of marriage scenarios, none of them including one man and on woman. Even in Jesus’ day polygyny (one man, multiple wives) was common. It is significant that Jesus did not take the time to denounce it.

But let the hate flow: “Churches and religiously affiliated institutions will lose their tax-exempt status,” she said.

I don’t see how this is a logical outcome of granting people their Constitutional rights, but they should lose it anyway, I say, as they blatantly and illegally engage in politicking.

The article goes on to inform us that “She claimed that Christian colleges would be forced to house same-sex couples in dorms, social work students would be kicked out of school if they refused to counsel gays and lesbians, politicians would revoke funds from religious organizations, and parents would be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.”

Wow, those poor Christians. As opposed to say LGBT couples having no rights at all, at present, to get married, and who lack many other rights held by heterosexuals, who are banned from joining certain organizations (even if those organizations are publicly funded).

What Teresa Collett really wants is a right to violate the constitutional rights of individuals based on who hey fall in love with, all the while pretending to be concerned about rights. In truth, the only right she is concerned about is her right to deprive other people of theirs.

In the end, we are told, “The hourlong testimony from both sides contemplated three bills: one to create civil unions, one to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and one to allow full legal marriage for same-sex couples. The hearing was for informational purposes only, and no vote was taken.”