Skip to main content

State Senator Dan Hall (R- Burnsville) from Minnesota finally spoke and inserted his foot in his mouth.
Poor Pastor Dan Hall, his hatred for gays does not allow him to see beyond this group of degenerate, commie, hypocritical left wing crazies to see facts.

Senator Hall observed his first term very quietly, hardly ever speaking on the Senate floor. We now know why. Even his greatest accomplishment was a bust. He authored legislation last year to tighten disclosure laws on government employee payouts. The bill passed unanimously, however he left a loophole one could drive a truck through.

After Democratic Senators (and 1 Republican) introduced a bill that would legalize gay marriage in Minnesota, 13 Republicans stood up at a press conference to denounce he bill.

House Member Glen (Lets do it because it works in my rural district) Gruenhagen says he knows that it is a lie that gays don't have a choice to be gay. He must be some sort of an expert.

This was followed by my favorite Comment

Sen. Dan Hall, a pastor, says he'd go to jail before marrying a gay couple. But the bill has an exemption that no church would be forced to perform gay weddings.
Here is the Bill - SF No. 925
   Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 363A.26, is amended to read:
1.8363A.26 EXEMPTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION.

1.20(3) taking any action with respect to the provision of goods, services, facilities, or
1.21 accommodations directly related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage that is
1.22     in violation of its religious beliefs.

Could someone show me the place in the bill where religious leaders are going to be locked up for following their conscience?

I have no problem if someone wants to be a Homophobe who theorizes supporters of gay rights are unpatriotic - what I do reject is this ignoramus of a legislator assuming something not in the bill to try to cast phantom aspersions on proponents.

The moral difference is this: Someone can be against gay marriage. No problem here. However, Republicans like Hall insist that everyone must agree and abide by their wishes, for the good of society. This is Republicans imposing their religious beliefs upon others by use of the government. On the contrary, no one is forcing a right winger to marry someone of the same sex!

Sen. Dan Hall makes this classic projection fallacy that his opponents are somehow forcing him to ACTIVELY accept gay marriage (i.e be  forced to take part in ceremonies)

However, it is the Republicans who are themselves to blame as to why gay marriage will pass in Minnesota by taking a gambit last year by trying to pass a constitutional amendment to enshrine this hatred in the Minnesota Constitution. The amendment was roundly rejected.  During the debate on the amendment, the hypocrisy of the Senate Republican Majority Leader having an extra maritial affair at the time of debate on the amendment rang true and clear. Senators and representatives were directed not to speak on their personal beliefs on gay marriage, but instead were instructed to speak  ad naseum about "Let the voters decide".

Fast forward to this year:  With the new Democratic majorities, the Republican homophobes in the legislature are going to have to come out, so to speak, and expose their hatred and bigotry against gays. Let the hatred begin.

Thank you for starting the ball rolling Rep Hall.

Update: Here is Sen Hall's quote reported by the Pioneer Press:

Sen. Dan Hall of Burnsville said the bill would exempt churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings. But if it became law, he predicted, that eventually could change.

"Once you open the door, you're not going to be able to shut it," said Hall, a pastor. "I personally will go to jail before I ever perform a marriage to a homosexual."

Here

Sen Hall's argument is the slippery slope - If we allow gay marriage, then what's next- cats and dogs? Pastors thrown in jail? Kids marrying adults? Pastors embracing ALL people?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is it too late to amend the bill? (9+ / 0-)

    Because locking him up for being generally stupid seems like it could be a useful addition. Not for being a homophobe, mind you. His stupidity is far, far more dangerous.

    What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:01:08 PM PST

  •  My first thought: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ontheleftcoast

    ((youtube Cp0I9qLE0VA))

    We're doing an anti-Westboro Baptist documentary. Help us here.

    by Geiiga on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 10:16:07 PM PST

  •  Dear Pastor Dan... (7+ / 0-)

    Don't marry anyone. Just officiate. Yes, that's the term.

    O F F I C I A T E

    Pastors don't marry. They don't do anything other than channel official and/or religious messages.

    Consult with your wife, Pastor Dan.

    She will assure you that you are already married.

    To her.

    •  He doesn't even have to officiate. (7+ / 0-)

      He's not a Justice of the Peace, expected to officiate over the wedding of any legally-eligible couple.

      He's a pastor who can choose whose wedding he wants to bless, and whose he wants to pass on. All clergy can do that.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:17:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I want to echo this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Intheknow

        Too many people end up agreeing with writing a religious exemption into a law.

        Any church has the right to refuse to marry ANYONE - straight or gay.  Writing this into law is not only redundant, but it serves to make the public more ignorant than it already is!

        Obama/Biden 2012 Leadership - not lies!

        by thunderchi on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:14:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If an explicit religious exemption is the cost... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Intheknow

          ...of getting marriage equality written into law, then I'm comfortable with a little bit of redundancy.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:25:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  That's okay. They probably don't want him to (8+ / 0-)

    marry them anyway. Idjit.

    When you come to find how essential the comfort of a well-kept home is to the bodily strength and good conditions, to a sound mind and spirit, and useful days, you will reverence the good housekeeper as I do above artist or poet, beauty or genius.

    by Alexandra Lynch on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 11:30:09 PM PST

    •  That's what I don't get about all of this. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, Intheknow, Dodgerdog1, sfbob

      What makes these right-wing gasbags think that if the religious exemption weren't in place, any same-sex couple would want to let someone who hates their breathing guts officiate over one of the most important and meaningful days of their lives?

      Do the right-wing gasbags really think that same-sex couples would derive such psychological satisfaction from sticking a thumb in the eye of a bigot preacher that they would want to get married by someone who thinks they don't deserve basic human rights?

      It seems rather far-fetched to me.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:20:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The state makes the rules for marriage (6+ / 0-)

    Maybe there are rules about minimum age, not marrying relatives, paying the fee for a license, etc. Do some states still have a blood test for STDs? Whatever.

    Preachers perform a religious ceremony (only). As far as I know, preachers have the choice to preside or not over any wedding. A Catholic priest can refuse to officiate in a marriage between two Lutherans, two atheists, or anyone else. Nobody is forcing the preachers to do anything. Nobody is going to jail.

    “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

    by Dbug on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:23:28 AM PST

    •  Good Point And It Blows A Hole In His Concern (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Intheknow, Dbug

      about "eventually the bill will be modified to force religions to perform gay marriage"

      A reporter should ask "Pastor, if that were true, why haven't you been forced yet to perform Catholic Marriages, Jewish Ceremonies, Atheists, etc, etc.?"

      "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

      by kerplunk on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:08:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bigotry is bigotry with or without religious (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, glorificus, Intheknow, sfbob

    excuses.

    We didn't put bullshit clauses like that into the repeals of anti-miscegenation laws.

    The First Amendment protects bigots from having to perform any marriages that offend their racist or homophobic beliefs, but clauses like that just allow people who offer marriage services in public accommodations to discriminate.

    And it's wrong.

    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

    by JesseCW on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:03:23 AM PST

    •  I'm not seeing that in the bill. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Batya the Toon, Intheknow, Dodgerdog1
      clauses like that just allow people who offer marriage services in public accommodations to discriminate.
      Looking at the text of the bill itself, the conscience exemption there applies only to "any religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, or any institution organized for educational purposes that is operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit."

      That wouldn't give legal cover to a Justice of the Peace who didn't want to marry same-sex couples, since that Justice wouldn't be officiating over the wedding in the name of a religious organization. He or she would be expected to officiate over the wedding regardless of his or her opinions about the couple.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:25:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree. If an alleged 'person of God' whose (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JamesGG, Intheknow, milkbone

      very profession and supposedly life are to be governed by their religious beliefs is homophobic, I don't see why they should have to perform wedding services they are uncomfortable with.

      Public employees better do their jobs or get their asses fired, though.

      A wedding is not like a lunch counter. Yes, there is often food, but it is not in continual operation.

      Also, judges and various other legal entities can perform marriage services. I have a friend who became
      "ordained" on the internet because her kids wanted her to perform the services for them - her kids did not marry each other, btw.

      Marriage is a legal contract. Doesn't matter who says the words as long as the paperwork gets signed and filed.

      *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

      by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:29:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure you read my whole comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Intheknow

        The First already protects any religious leader from being forced to marry anyone.  We have overtly racist Church's and Mosques in this country that will not perform "inter-racial" marriages.

        But if you offer weddings on a river boat, you need to provide the same services to everyone.  For the exact same reasons you need to feed everyone who comes to your lunch counter (plus some others).

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:21:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  He's projecting. He wants a government that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow

    enforces his version of civilization, be that as uncivilized as it may be. So obviously his opponents must want the same thing; enforcing the opposite of his god's laws.

  •  Some Christians do 'martyr' very well. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow, milkbone

    Saying he may be forced to perform a marriage ceremony is just a staking horse.  They have nothing else.  

    •  Exactly and I call BS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Intheknow

      These bigots, like racists and sexists, try to pretend they are the real victims - Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck, all these morons talk about how persecuted they are while raking in millions. Not only could he not go to jail, I'd be willing to bet he has no intention of ever doing so. These bigots are not Martin Luther King. They don't suffer for their beliefs, they get on Fox "News".

  •  Minnesota Marriage Equality Bill Video (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:39:10 AM PST

  •  I support this man's resolve (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow

    to go to jail rather than be forced by the government to perform a ceremony that is prohibited by his religion.

    It would be a good deal more impressive if there were any real chance that the government would do any such thing.

  •  When I married my wife (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow

    we couldn't force a rabbi to perform the ceremony. The ones my wife knew just wouldn't do it as I wasn't Jewish. That's their right, although I think it might have been nice if they'd spoken to me first to find out what my views were.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:32:38 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site