11/09/2009
Minneapolis Columnist: Gays will Destroy Marriage
A couple of our Minneapolis readers sent in this column from the Star-Tribune by Katherine Kersten, which apparently had no counterpoint.
Writes Kersten:
"Once marriage is stripped of its organic purpose, why restrict it to two people? Two lesbians and the sperm donor for their child, polygamists, bisexuals: All will want society to recognize and respect their relationships. And why should marriage be open only to people with a sexual relationship? That discriminates against two female friends who want to share the burdens of rearing their kids, or a disabled brother and sister who live together. Some of the most influential proponents of same-sex marriage seek to 'get the state out of the marriage business' altogether. It's ironic that in other realms of life, Americans are very aware of the risks of tampering excessively with nature. Many of those urging us to transform humankind's fundamental social institution are the very people who preach about such risks in the environmental context and warn that the actions of individuals affect the well-being of all. The natural world, they say, can stretch only so far before breaking as we tinker with the realities of its systems."
The Perilous, Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage [star tribune]
Posted 8:21 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, Minneapolis, Minnesota, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
it's been said once, it's been said before: heterosexuals are doing a bang-up job of destroying marriage on their own. why even bother with the same old "slippery slope" argument? if gays marry, why, dogs will marry cats! up will be down! the sun will come up at night!
Posted by: Jay | Nov 9, 2009 8:39:33 AM
A recent study in Massachusetts, where they've had marriage equality for almost 5 years, says that the divorce rate in the Commonwealth is the lowest since WORLD WAR II. So much for the "we're going to destroy heterosexual marriage". And this bigot, when she and others like her talk about marriage being exclusively for procreation, conveniently forgets the heterosexual marriages without children (like, for instance, rabid homophobe Pat Buchanan's marriage). Unfortuantely, as we slowly move towards the marriage equality that WILL happen in this country, bigots like her will get more and more shrill, more and more bizarre, more and more hateful in their irrational opposition to our civil rights.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 9, 2009 8:44:29 AM
It continually amazes me how these wingnuts draw comparisons to completely unrelated items to bolster their positions. Marriage is NOT a natural institution. It was created by humans. It has been redefined by humans. It is not global warming. And of course the "mainstream" press will parrot this nonsense and start using the term "natural marriage". It just drives me bonkers...
Posted by: Mike | Nov 9, 2009 8:46:59 AM
Same tired baseless arguments, different day.
Posted by: clemsonaj | Nov 9, 2009 8:47:46 AM
And she was SO sweet on the Golden Girls...
Posted by: C.Edwards | Nov 9, 2009 8:50:40 AM
Changing legal definitions does not actually change reality. Gay people will still have just as much sex, cohabitate, raise kids, blah blah just as much with or without a marriage law.
The key is her remark about "recognize and respect." I actually only care about recognition. Respect I don't really care about from strangers.
Posted by: Yeek | Nov 9, 2009 8:56:45 AM
The Star Tribune is a newspaper that did everything in its power to prop up Norm Coleman in the last election against Al Franken. This “newspaper” is run by and for the Devos/Amway/Blackwater family of “Christians” which owns Minnesota lock stock and barrel.
Posted by: ggreen | Nov 9, 2009 9:05:16 AM
Why is Screech from Saved By The Bell dressed up in drag?
Posted by: David in Houston | Nov 9, 2009 9:06:11 AM
She looks like the mayor's wife from Steel Magnolias. The one that got hit in the head with a baseball.
That dress. That hair. That horrible bigotry. She is her own parody.
Wow. Just... wow.
Posted by: The Milkman | Nov 9, 2009 9:08:09 AM
And who is the editor at this Minneapolis paper? Someone had to okay this going into print... maybe it's a last-gasp from this particular paper since no one's reading it anyway.
Posted by: stephen | Nov 9, 2009 9:08:51 AM
Oh, and Terry's right. Bigots like her will get more and more apoplectic as the societal change that has ALREADY HAPPENED begins to settle down and take effect. And I for one can't wait... those folks have already jumped the shark, and are now nothing but crazy unabomber-types whose shrill bleating will only make them more pathetic and unpalatable to the reasonable folks out there. Sit back and enjoy the show, folks.
Posted by: The Milkman | Nov 9, 2009 9:12:06 AM
What utter nonsense! Ms. Kersten, two "female friends" as you out it ARE NOT in a sexual relationship. They wouldn't therefor be in need, nor want to marry. DO YOU MARRY YOUR FRIENDS? a brother and sister marrying? You're confusing incest with TWO NON RELATED,loving individuals. I hope in the future you refrain from baseless fear tactics about "the end of civilization" and stick to the facts. Perhaps you should take some knowledge from
Voltaire who once said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it" and apply that to the rights of Gays to marry as well.
www.Twitter.com/TweetwithStone
Posted by: Stone | Nov 9, 2009 9:36:54 AM
That blouse of hers is certainly "tampering excessively with nature."
The same tired old arguments. To those who bring up polygamy, I always say, If you think polygamists deserve equal marriage rights, take it to the courts and the legislatures, as we did, and good luck. It's not our concern, it's yours.
As for the disabled brother and sister (usually it's the maiden aunts) should be able to marry argument, why the sudden concern for them? You didn't care about them before gay couples began marrying. (To get CUs passed in VT back in the day, they actually added "reciprocal benefits" for any two people into the law--number of takers over a decade: 0)
The only slippery slope is logic-proof arguments like these. Don't try those in court, honey. Our only job is to not allow wingnut caricatures like this to put us on the defensive.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 9, 2009 10:05:01 AM
Read some of the many letters the paper got because of this column. They read her like the telephone directory.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 9, 2009 10:19:58 AM
OK natural, gay is natural anyone that has raised Rabbits or studied chimps will tell gay is natural
Posted by: Jimbo | Nov 9, 2009 10:28:59 AM
Gee, the Bible actually favours polygamy. You think she'd be thrilled!
Of course in Canada we've had same-sex marriage for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed marriage. It *has* put a big dent into ugly tacky weddings--the kind she looks to be dressed for.
Posted by: David D. | Nov 9, 2009 10:38:20 AM
If by "organic purpose" she means procreation, then she should be fighting for laws that only allow fertile people, who can medically prove that they can conceive without the aid of science, to marry. That law would have to exclude people over the age of 50 from marrying. Also, if she is such a champion of organic purpose, she should wipe off that lipstick and cease using all those chemicals to style her hair and that aid in the removal of the hair from her legs, armpits, and upper lip. She does not look like that "organically."
Posted by: Matsy | Nov 9, 2009 10:40:56 AM
The Star Tribune has been circling the drain for a while. It rarely reflects the views and interests of actual Minneapolis/St. Paul residents (a very liberal population) and has been the punchline to many a joke for quite some time. I mean, the MN Daily is a better paper, and it's written by a bunch of U of M undergrads in work study positions.
Posted by: scientitian | Nov 9, 2009 11:12:48 AM
We've got it something like it in Mexico. It's called "Sociedades de convivencia". I don't know exactly how to translate it, but it's like a civil partnership, except that you don't need to be in a sexual relationship to join it, you just have to live together and want it to be recognized.
I'm not sure if it admits more than two people, but I think it doesn't, basically because of bureaucracy.
Posted by: Nirgal | Nov 9, 2009 11:34:14 AM
When did marriage become part of nature? I must have missed the day when marriage became the state tree of Georgia. Or the state bird of Maine.
How and why do they let these idiots print this stuff? This woman is out and out dumb. Period. No going back, she's just dumb.
Marriage is an institution. Created by men so that women could become property. Sex is natural. Marriage...no. It's not a tree, it's not an animal, it's not a glacier.
But this woman is an idiot. And that is a fact.
Posted by: Bart | Nov 9, 2009 12:07:13 PM
The next thing you know, women will want to become hack writers and have trashy columns in regional newspapers. Where will it all end?
Fuck you, Mrs. Garrett.
Posted by: Gry | Nov 9, 2009 2:01:51 PM
Take the wind out of this bitch's sails. I'm so sick of the bigots framing the question and the debate. When some stupid bigot says "if same sex couples, why not incest? Why not bestiality? Why not polygamy" Fire back with a question of your own. "If not same sex couples, why should opposite sex couples be allowed to marry? Why should opposite sex couples get special rights and privileges denied to others?" They'll say kids, but you can say same sex couples have kids, too...and that's when it's over.
Posted by: TANK | Nov 9, 2009 2:12:59 PM
KK's column exists for one reason and one reason only: so the Strib can claim that it's not a left-wing liberal paper.
Posted by: JB | Nov 9, 2009 2:24:34 PM
"Why is Screech from Saved By The Bell dressed up in drag?"
David in Houston wins the Internet!
Posted by: Bill in SoCal | Nov 9, 2009 2:40:53 PM
Gays will destroy marriage...with a generous assist from serially divorcing heterosexuals, yet no one is threatening them with propositions and legislation.
Posted by: mutterhals | Nov 9, 2009 3:39:05 PM