Clinging to a Deeply Held Belief About Marriage

Matt Peiken

Matt Peiken

The writers of “Saturday Night Live” couldn’t have sketched out the parade of self-parody Republicans choreographed Monday in the Minnesota Senate chambers.

Reciting their catchphrase of the day—“deeply held beliefs”—Republican after Republican argued that because they believe so strongly, so sincerely, that homosexuality is wrong, they aren’t bigots but merely misunderstood, conscientious objectors. Inevitably, this was going to be their fallback position.

Advocates for marriage equality spent the past two years dissecting, like surgeons, every hypocritical warning, sky-is-falling fear mongering and easy-baked science drummed up to keep gays and lesbians from legally marrying in Minnesota. Republican legislators paid a big price last November for attempting to seal discrimination into the state constitution. Of course, when they spoke of “unintended consequences” before Monday’s history-making vote, they somehow overlooked the fact they’re responsible for putting same-sex marriage on the legislative agenda.

Despite all the post-election come-to-jesus retreats, promises of “lessons learned” and talk of returning to a focus on economic issues, Republicans still in office are clinging to rhetorical tropes dating to Anita Bryant’s crusades—with this comical twist: Legalizing same-sex marriage would infringe upon the rights of people who object to it.

The Republicans brave (or clueless) enough to speak Monday brought up theoretical wedding florists and photographers, cake decorators, public school teachers and city administrators who would be forced, by this law, to go against their “deeply held beliefs” and serve gay and lesbian couples. Sen. Paul Gazelka of Nisswa went so far as to offer an amendment that would shield any individual business or employee from legal fallout for honoring their “deeply held, sincere beliefs” by turning away gays and lesbians. I suppose a half-century of federal civil and human rights law, which makes such discrimination illegal, matters little when you don’t consider gay and lesbian people—or, more accurately, their social and sexual lives—worthy of protection. Sen. Scott Dibble, in his measured response, called Gazelka’s proposal “breathtaking.”

Sen. Carla Nelson of Rochester criticized the bill for not exempting publicly funded entities that provide adoption, foster care or social services from the ability to discriminate on the basis “religious freedom.”  “We must respect religious freedom at the same time that we advance rights,” said Nelson, one of many Republicans who have never demonstrated interest in advancing the rights of gay and lesbian couples.

Sen. Torrey Westrom of Elbow Lake, by way of Foot in Mouth, stole the show for cartoonish bromides. He played the slippery-slope, “where does it end?” card and called marriage between one man and one woman “a tradition our state has recognized since creation.” He held up Minnesota’s legislative action, in 1997, to define marriage as if divinely produced, and inferred the current legislature doesn’t have the moral standing to undo their work.

Sen. Dan Hall of Burnsville became the poster elder for irony. He posed this: “Children need a father and a mother: Which one would you not have wanted?” Moments later, he answered his own question, divulging that his mother raised four children despite an alcoholic husband who she divorced when Hall was 6 and that his stepfather was also a drunk. “I tried not to be home when he was around,” added Hall, who went on to say, “many of my relatives were addicts, criminals, two sent to prison, more than one child molester.”

I’ve never heard such damning testimony against same-sex marriage.

Some people suggest that only the extremists among Republican state senators took turns at the microphone Monday, yet of the 37 legislators who voted for House Bill HF1054, 36 are Democrats. These Republicans either voted their “deeply held beliefs” or to protect their “deeply held seats” in the legislature. Both motives are craven and contemptible.

You could have dropped almost every one of these speeches into the 20th century debates that desegregated schools and opened other opportunities for black Americans and not been able to tell the difference. Today, Republicans wield “religious freedom” as a shield against accusations of bigotry, and there’s nothing sincere about it. Let’s put it this way: If the religious leaders these people most admire suddenly came out in support of same-sex marriage, these Republicans wouldn’t change their beliefs—they would simply believe their leaders had lost their way.

The only deeply held beliefs these legislators share are the world around them is changing and the march of progress and justice is leaving them behind.

5 thoughts on “Clinging to a Deeply Held Belief About Marriage

  1. Right on, Matt and responders. Maybe Rand Paul should move to Minnesota to advocate for a return to the wonderful world of segregated lunchrooms, toilets, water fountains, playgrounds, classrooms, buses, etc., etc., etc. Passing through Jackson, MS in 1978, I was shocked while drinking from a “colored” water fountain outside the Greyhound station (the “whites only” fountain was broken) to be scolded by some local rednecks who informed me that I “don’t want to be drinkin’ that there colored water.” Naive as I was not much more than 10 years after the last state (Virginia) abolished the prohibition against interracial marriage nor much more than 20 years after the Supreme Court desegregated the schools, I asked “Why not? What harm will it do me?” Needless to say, I was missing the point and was told so very derisively, almost menacingly. My 2 companions, cool-headed as they were, suggested we should leave while we could — so we did, with our scalps intact. Whatever happened to the great progressive traditions in Wisconsin and Minnesota? But if that’s what these people of “deeply held religious belief” crave, “God help us,” as they might say.

  2. I know that most of the Republican state senators are simply clinging to the religious right for seats at this point, but what about the conservative Christian population? What is your take on a woman or man’s religious belief that gay marriage should not be recognized? The only motive they have is their passion for what they believe, a religious zeal they did not make up on the spot (like some of those elected to represent us). Many of them obviously don’t want to be considered hateful or bigots; their doctrine simple positions them to appear as such when the civil rights context is provided. Whether it’s right or wrong, there is an extremely large population of Minnesotans who don’t think gay marriage is ethical. Is there a tangible solution to uphold their religious “rights” moving forward?

    • Alex, what’s the difference between the scenario you put forth and someone whose religious beliefs don’t recognize mixed-race couples, or Hinduism or Islam as a legitimate faith, or those whose patriarchal religious views don’t countenance the equality of women with men? Do the Christians you put forth have a right to discriminate the public services they offer based upon their so-called religious beliefs? Of course they don’t want to be perceived as bigots, but whether this discrimination is couched in faith or disgust doesn’t make it any more tolerable in a democratic society. Their actions are bigoted. Civil rights and human rights legislation has been crafted just to slice through this kind of discrimination—to protect minorities from majorities that might exclude them—and I would put forth that anyone who discriminates against lives and lifestyles that might violate someone’s “deeply held beliefs” needs to re-examine what their faith is all about.

      • I think that’s a great answer, thanks. I don’t mean to press you on this, but what about Christian-sponsored hospitals being forced to provide contraception in new employee health plans? Does that seem like an infringement upon religious freedom? When the issue does not deal with human beings’ civil rights, how much is the Church allowed to stick up for itself?

      • Alex, I’m not versed in the minutiae of healthcare law and the legal obligations of hospitals. But let’s be clear about something: Why does “the church” need to stick up for itself? Any church can offer marriage ceremonies, or not, to whoever it chooses. But when a church or another organization accepts public funds and enjoys tax-exempt benefits, it has surrendered the ability to offer benefits (or contraception) to some people and not others. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I’d imagine that if contraception weren’t available to anyone as part of a given organization’s health plan, it would be up to the employee to seek that contraception elsewhere. Discrimination is the issue here. I mean, a charity that feeds the homeless may not offer meals to satisfy vegans, but it can’t turn away certain visitors based on race, color, sexuality or other dividing (and defining) lines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s