The 50 Spot: Minnesota Faith Leaders Say Gay Marriage Will End the World

by Michael Jones · 2009-03-18 02:53:00 UTC

Minnesota NutjobsOh, if only we were making it up. We're not. And these faith leaders in Minnesota are behind an effort to introduce legislation that would not only ban same-sex marriage in the land of 10,000 lakes, but also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. Yup, it's hate passing as religion in the upper Midwest. In other news, we're visiting New Jersey and Arizona in today's 50 spot.

Minnesota: A group of religious leaders in Minnesota has proven that when a Rabbi, an Imam and a Lutheran enter the scene, the punchline isn't always funny. Case in point, an interfaith statement released in perfect unison with the Minnesota Family Council's efforts to push for legislation that would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. According to Imam Ikram ul-Huq, who signed the statement, "If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years." Yes, something seems suspect about that math, but the Imam's point certainly gets across. This Imam was joined by Lutheran Pastor Tom Brock, who infamously said in 2003 that 9/11 was God's wake-up call to America for becoming too lenient on the issue of homosexuality. No word yet on whether Fred Phelps is going to join these religious leaders in support on their efforts (we wouldn't be surprised....).

New Jersey: A gay couple leaving a Britney Spears concert in Newark were allegedly victims of a hate crime, after 15-20 youths chased them down and punched and kicked them. One of the victims, Joshua Kehoe, told the AP: "They targeted us because of who we are. What hurts the most is that they were laughing as they started running toward us. It was a game to them. They thought it was fun." Joshua's boyfriend, Bobby Daniel Caldwell, had his jaw broken in two places during the attack. So far, none of the perpetrators have been found.

Arizona: An eighth grade student in the Peoria Unified School District in Arizona was told that he could not wear a rainbow bracelet on his arm that said "Rainbows are Gay." Why? Because some teachers found the wristband offensive. Enter the ACLU. They've now threatened action on the school district, saying that banning the wristband is a direct slap in the face to students' free speech and expression. And they're right. School officials should have bigger fish to fry than banning wristbands (like, you know, providing a quality education to all students). From the official ACLU presser on the subject: "The Supreme Court has held that students have a right to free speech at school, and that includes gay students. The ACLU has won dozens of cases over the years where schools have tried to get away with illegal censorship," said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. "A handful of teachers supposedly working themselves into a tizzy over one little wristband is hardly an excuse for violating Chris Quintanilla's right to free speech."

Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor. He has worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School.
PREVIOUS STORY:
U.S. to Sign Historic UN Statement on LGBT Rights
NEXT STORY:
Bullied high schooler convinces MPAA to change ‘Bully’ rating to “PG-13”

COMMENTS (10)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.