MFC doesn't seem to be the website source for the Legislative Emails
I would be very interested in getting copies of one of these emails - with full headers. This would help to find the web source of the emails.
Friday, December 05, 2003
MFC doesn't seem to be the website source for the Legislative Emails
Posted by lloydletta at 4:23 PM
Another legislator Comments on the Email Deluge on Gay Marriage
This legislator withheld their name, but commented on this site.
I too have received about two hundred emails on this subject, from around the state, within about a 24 hour period. I disagree with the charachterizatation of many of the emails being "worded exactly the same". They all appear to be individually worded, and absolutely are not "form" emails. Although, they do seem to be entered on a website by the individuals, and then the website is forwarding the email to all 201 legislators. Every email comes with a full name, address and email address.
I don't call that orchestrated, I call that time-saving and effective!
On the flip side, I have received one contact expressing opposition to the amendment. Although, as this debate heats up I expect the legislature to be completely inundated from both sides- probably starting in February when we are back in session.
EY: Feel free to add your comments. I'm still curious about which website is referring these emails.
Posted by lloydletta at 4:18 PM
Editorial Judgement at Southwest Journal
posted today on the Minneapolis Rumours list.
I have learned from a former Lake Street PAC member, who was at 11/18 meeting, that the reporter who wrote the Southwest Journal's story on that meeting was not actually at the meeting. Indeed, she was on vacation at the time, a fact verified by the former PAC member in a phone conversation with the reporter. See. . .
http://swjournal.com/display/inn_news/news01.txt [EY note: This links to an article about bullying]
If I understand this former PAC member correctly, the reporter relied largely on information supplied by the project manager of the PAC, Smith Parker's Tom Johnson, to write the story.
To be fair, I should note that Tim Springer of the Midtown Greenway Coalition, a PAC member speaking in favor of wide sidewalks and bike accommodations, is also quoted in the article.
While nothing in the article implies that the reporter was at the meeting, I wonder if the reporter spoke to multiple members and facilitators of the PAC as implied in the following sentence from the article.
"PAC members and facilitators said while the four-lane option was approved, further review of a three-lane option drew considerable support-- making the pre-vote discussion heated."
More importantly, I question the wisdom of the editorial decision to cover a vote that may have extensive effects on the future of south Minneapolis from such a distance. . . .
While "Bullies" are indeed "an age-old problem," as a featured article in the current Journal observes, I would have liked to see instead a lead article by the Journal on WHY and HOW the future of Lake Street is being determined by a tighly managed process that involves circumscribed "discussion"--heated or otherwise.
Posted by lloydletta at 4:10 PM
Jim Graham Booted out of Minneapolis Rumours
It appears that list member Jim Graham was booted from Minneapolis Issues by List Meister David Brauer. It's unclear whether the expulsion was as arbitrary as when I was expelled.
Was Graham expelled because Steve Cramer of PPL complained?
List manager says a few of comments on Cramer's screed tip the insult meter.
Brauer than edit's Jim Graham's response - and posts it to the Minneapolis Issues list.
Despite his suspension, I offered Jim Graham a chance to respond to Steve Cramer's initial post. I thought that was only fair since Steve wrote in shortly after Jim was suspended.
For the record, I took out one section that deals with whether or not Steve Cramer broke list rules (I have such discretion with forwarded posts only). I've dealt with that issue in a earlier post today.
EY: David seems to confuse his role as List Manager as the editing role he has with SW Journal/Skyway News.
Posted by lloydletta at 3:23 PM
How do Minnesota Schools Deal with the kids of Gay Parents?
The Washington Post covered the story about the kid of a lesbian parent who was disciplined for telling another kid that his mother was gay. This occurred in the Lafeyette, Louisianna school district. Isn't it interesting that the anti-gay Family Research Council doesn't seem to want to talk about this one?
from the article:
Huff said her son has known about her lesbian relationships for several years. "I tell him that he's just like any other kid except that he has two moms. Some children are adopted, some are raised by grandparents. A family are people who love each other."
It was just such a matter-of-fact attitude that got Marcus in trouble. As he was standing in line for morning recess, his classmate asked him about his mother and father. He replied that he didn't have a mother and father; he had two mothers. When the other child asked why he had two moms, he said his mother was gay and when the questioner persisted and asked what that meant, he responded, "Gay is when a girl likes another girl."
Bethea, his teacher, heard the exchange and scolded him in front of his classmates, according to the ACLU, then sent him to the principal's office in place of recess. In her report to school officials, Bethea wrote: "This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way."
Marcus got her message. On his behavior contract, he was asked what he did.
"I sed bad wurds," he wrote.
When asked what he should have done, he replied, "cep my mouf shut."
EY: This is why there's a need for programs like Out for Equity and Out for Good in the St Paul and Minneapolis School Districts respectively. The anti-gay Leviticus crowd likes to go on about how "homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit" - and then go on and on about how gays are after the children (when they aren't ranting about "fisting", "gerbils", "log samplin' republicans", "fudgepackers" or "man on dog sex"). Lindner tried to call his anti-gay bill the "Defence of Innocence Act". This article shows how anti-gay attitudes in schools can be very traumatic to the kids in the schools who have gay parents.
Ofcourse this case is going to go to court - and the school district will probably end up paying a healthy settlement. Wouldn't it be better if teachers got better training about how to deal with this sort of situation should it come up.
This is why books like "Heather has two mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" exist. The anti-gay activists like to go on and on about these books being so bad for children - but if you read these books, they are not sexually explicit or anything like that. They just treat the subject of gay people in a matter of fact way - and age appropriate for grade school kids way.
So what is more age appropriate for grade school kids? Heather has two mommies or the Minnesota Family Council's "Backgrounder" on Homosexuality which talks about how gay men like to ingest feces?
Posted by lloydletta at 10:13 AM
Fan Mail for Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments
I love the bible quotes you have on your blog.
I used to have an old book that listed all the obscure, weird scriptures that somehow don't get into sermons.
It just proves those 'religious' bastards never read the book..or any book.
Maybe we can get a legislator to try enact some of these Old Testament rules as State Laws. I particularly want to see the Sabbath enforced ..bring back the "Blue Laws" that prevented business from opening on Sunday...and best of all (from my perspective) NO DRIVING ON THE SABBATH!!!!! It would be fun to get the right-wingers on record supporting or even better denouncing and voting against bible-based legislation. Vote for stoning...Vote to enforce fasting...Vote to shut down the Mall of America on Sunday...it's in the Bible!!!
Of course they'll say that stuff is in the Old testament. But there's nothing in the New Testament about gays (or birth control or abortion). There is a lot about Usury and Divorce...practices very common among many modern day "religious" types. Jesus says a LOT about divorce and charging interest. For most of the history of the Christian religion, Divorce and usury were sins.
Posted by lloydletta at 9:20 AM
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Conversation with "Marriage Protection Act" Supporter
I got this response from a Minnesota State Representative:
I support the Marriage Protection Act
To which I responded:
Thanks for your answer, Represenative. I'm curious - has the divorce rate in Minnesota gone down since DOMA was passed?
He didn't know - so he asked me:
I give up! What's the answer? And what does this have to do with the Defense of Marriage Act?
So I reply:
I'm not sure what's happened with the divorce rate since DOMA was passed. I just find it ironic that people want to blame gays for the problems heterosexuals seem to have keeping their wedding vows and staying married. It seems that a high divorce rate is much more of a threat to the institution of marriage. I don't understand why gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
My Defense of Marriage comes from my belief and my interpretation of Holy Scripture.
I know the argument about the separation of Church and State, but I cannot separate my belief from my business or political life.
I dont approach the subject of marriage of same sex just to prevent divorce. I go a lot deeper than that.
I'm intrigued by the scriptural reference, so I go to bible.com and do a search on virgin - and find a really racy chapter in Deuteronomy that I decide to ask the Representative about.
Hi Rep _____:
I just reviewed chapter 22 in Deuteronomy.
According to verses 28-29, when a virgin gets raped, she should marry the rapist:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and
lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Then in Deuteronomy verses 13-27 it says that if a man doesn't like his new wife - and can prove she isn't a virgin, then she gets stoned to death. So should the constitution get amended to make sure that women get stoned to death if they are not virgins when they get married? After all
Deuteronomy 13-27 says:
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
I've not gotten a response to this question. If I do, I will post the answer here.
Posted by lloydletta at 11:04 PM
What About the Threat of Divorce on the Institution of Marriage?
I posted the following to MN Politics Discuss - and sent a copy to the entire Minnesota State Legislature.
from the Independent Gay Forum.....
Scroll down to:
Froma Harrop, writing in the Providence Journal, notes that if conservatives really wanted to shore up marriage, they'd tackle the culture of divorce. But of course, since so many are themselves divorced, that might not be so appealing. Harrop writes: Georgia ("the buckle of the Bible Belt") sent twice-divorced, thrice-married Bob Barr [author of the Defense of Marriage Act] to Congress and as a sermonizing conservative. Another divorced Georgia Republican, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was plotting to dump his second wife while lecturing on the decline of American civilization. The late Sonny Bono, a rock star turned GOP conservative, had fathered four children by three of his four wives. He also condemned gay marriage as a threat to the family.
And it's not all Republicans. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, had broken up his own marriage, then accused Bill Clinton of setting a bad example for his children.
As President Bush has said, "I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own."
EY: I'd challenge Jim Thompson to address this..... Yes, I know it's
so much more fun to compare gays to those who like beastly encounters and incest perpetrators.... But let's talk about the real problems marriage in the US faces - and that's a high divorce rate.
It might be an interesting exercise to look at the divorce rate of those 100 representatives sponsoring the Federal Marriage Amendment - and compare it to the divorce rate of Congress as a whole.
When Elizabeth Birch of HRC debated Bob Barr over DOMA on TV - she
asked him "which of your three marriages are you trying to defend?" I thought it was a good question.
Posted by lloydletta at 10:49 PM
Minnesota Legislature Gets Inundated with Anti-Gay Emails
From a Minneapolis State Legislator......
Starting last night, I have been inundated with emails asking me to support the Bachmann/Holberg constitutional amendment. I found myself thinking of your comments as I read (well actually, skimmed) these notes. As expected, most talked about children needing two parents, and God saying marriage is between man and woman, and so on. And then there, out of the clear blue, came an email from some guy who said it would lead to sex and maybe marriage with animals! It's as you say, people just wander off to totally ridiculous conclusions.
These are clearly orchestrated -- with many worded exactly the same. Onlyone so far has come from our district.
Posted by lloydletta at 1:25 PM