Ofcourse this is AFTER they are getting some serious competition by the unfunded group Marriage Equality and Marry Me Minnesota. John Marty sent this oped into many local newspapers and reprinted on Eleventh Avenue South. Now the Strib has an article that Outfront Minnesota is taking the lead on this issue. That's interesting, because Jo Marsicano never disputed the claim that Outfront and Project 515 made calls to Senate leadership to put the kibbosh on the marriage equality legislation. From the comments to the Strib article:
Mr. Prichard's comment that "the state's interest in marriage is primarily the raising of children" intrigues me. First of all, I was unaware he spoke on behalf of the state. I am impressed, especially since I don't remember a recent election with his name anywhere on a ballot. I'm sure he has an equally valuable opinion on taxes, public transportation, health care, education or any number of issues that Minnesotans face daily. I think it's a good idea that only one person speak for the entire state. Thank God for Mr. Prichard. And God bless him for planting the seeds of the "Come on, I don't hate gay people, but we need to protect our kids from them!" argument that was made in California by the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. "Protect the institution of marriage!" Still, I'm curious as to the statistics of heterosexual marriages that have ended in divorce versus gay marriages that have ended in divorce. Is there not something like a 50% divorce rate? Given that gay people can only legally marry in, what is it? Two states? Where does this statistic fit into protecting marriage and protecting kids? If marriage is in such danger, and the gays, for the most part, can't do it... um, who is to blame? Well, I'm sure the gays messed it up somehow, but maybe a ban of divorce would serve to better protect marriage. That's probably too much work though. Yeah, let's stick with the ban. Prichard goes on to say "children need a mother and a father." Apparently, if they don't... well, it's mass hysteria. I'm paraphrasing a little there. I know in his well thought-out strategy, he has a fantastic plan for all of those children who live in single-parent households, right? They should be removed immediately. Children who have lost a parent -- maybe one has passed away, or maybe abandoned their family -- those kids will need new homes. What about the single-mom who, in today's economy, has to move in with her sister, or her mom, or her best friend to make ends meet and provide for her children? Oh no... TWO WOMEN RAISING THE CHILDREN! We can't have that. Oh wait, they're not GAY women, so it's OK, or... hang on... maybe the sister is gay, but... hmm... there seem to be a few missing pieces. So long as there's a mother and father, it's all good. Wait, if the mother and father are UNmarried, that's OK by Mr. Prichard too, right? I'm sure it would be. Let's not talk about that too much... that's probably a fly in the ointment to some extent, so we'll overlook that. So long as the gays can't get married, we're safe. Mr. Prichard's logic surpasses brilliance. He's so smart, I'm confident his thoughtful proposal will include contingencies for all of the children in these circumstances. Oh! And the children who watch their dad beat up their mom every night, they'll be fine. Or the children who have both a mother and father who don't feed, clothe or properly educate them -- those kids are in GREAT shape! Whew! Just DON'T LET THE GAYS MARRY, because it's to hell in a handbasket if they do. Mr. Prichard will protect us. God bless him.