Mike Ciresi adamant on imaginary same-sex marriage issue
The Almanac debate between Minnesota Senate candidates Mike Ciresi, Al Franken and Jim Cohen started out as rather sleepy. A paint by the numbers affair – for the most part.
At one point Ciresi began to paint a whole different picture (transcript below is my own):
Eskola:
Yes or no would be great, are you in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
Ciresi:
(looking at the floor) I’m in favor of no discrimination in this county whatsoever. I am not in favor of imposing requirements on religious denominations.Franken:
(looking directly at Eskola) Yes.
My ears picked up. Imposing what on the who now? Eh, no matter – probably just some political speak for cover in greater Minnesota. Yawn…
Eskola: (seeking clarification on Ciresi’s answer:) Are you…are you for legalizing gay marriage?
No. What I’ve said is for no discrimination whatsoever but in terms of marriage I am not in favor of imposing that on religious denominations.
Wait, what? No to gay marriage and no mention of civil unions? Same-sex marriage forced on religions? That just doesn’t make any sense. Is Ciresi’s ear piece hooked into a different debate? Oh, wait they’re on a couch.
Cohen:
::long answer, clear yes to civil unions::
Wurzer:
(redirects)I’m a little confused though, Mike Ciresi, about…(interrupting each other, laughing)
Ciresi:
What I said is, in terms of civil unions, I am in favor of that.
No, you did not!
I am not in favor - I do not favor any form of discrimination…
Yes, we know Mike.
…we have fought against this, our law firm has taken on many of these issues on a pro bono basis.
Totally true, great recovery. His law firm threw their heft behind equal access law suits and for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA]. All right, moving on, nothing to see here…
But…
Please stop.
I am not in favor of imposing on religious denominations that they have to marry gay people. I just don’t think that’s right.
What the @#$%? I can see why the hosts were confused.
Ciresi seems absolutely and genuinely convinced that forcing same-sex marriage on religions is somehow part and parcel of the marriage equality agenda. For those unfamiliar, it is not.
At the last Outfront Lobby Day I don’t recall organizers salivating at the thought of getting the National Guard to break down church doors and force their gay marriage upon the laity and clergy.
Not only is this not part of the equality agenda it’s also not part of the right-wing fundamentalist agenda either – and I’ve looked. The Family Research Council doesn’t even make this argument!
It’s like some orphaned bit of straw man rhetoric. For comparison and reference, here are Cohen’s and Franken’s crystal clear explanations of their positions from Andy Birkey at 11th Ave South:
Jim Cohen: “There is no reason for any of the rights, privileges, benefits of any group on gender, sex, or any other basis to be different from any other. I am for the kind of result that occurred in Connecticut and several other states to make sure that civil unions with all of the benefits are exactly the same.”
Al Franken: “Look I have been married for 32 years. I don’t see gay marriage as a threat to my marriage. Now, I do understand that people have problems with it and that there are people like Jim and Mike who want to go the civil union route and I don’t want to see division, especially the Right throwing division in this for no reason. What I think is a more important issue is employment, is ENDA. Thirty-three states say it is legal to fire someone for being gay and I think that’s a bigger issue.”
Cohen’s answer is good, Franken’s response is better. Nuff said.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Right on, Noah.
Wege says you are “parsing things pretty thin given how little time” the candidates were given to respond. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/27/104157/481 . That’s BS. Ciresi said the same thing THREE FREAKING TIMES. On what planet does he live that gay marriage advocates are seeking to impose their definitions of marriage on religions? That’s just insane. The whole point is they are talking about THE STATE and the privileges and responsibilities it accords to citizens. It is THE STATE’s definition of marriage that was changed in Massachussetts, not any religion’s.
Honestly, what the fuck was Mike talking about? Perhaps his Communications Director can offer some words of clarification to progressives.
Honestly, although I thought Franken’s answer was great, I wish one of them had called them on the bullshit question. I wish Franken had said, in additon, to “Yes” and his explanation, he would have added, “But Eric and Cathy I’m surprised at the question because I just don’t think that’s what’s foremost in Minnesotan’s minds. This is an issue used by Republicans to divide Democrats and divide the country. Minnesotans want to hear about Iraq, about infrastructure, about issues they face in their everydays lives.”
August 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
And this is why this imaginary issue will never see the light of day: even our own candidates cannot separate marriage from religion. Mike, don’t fret, the majority of religious institutions would still turn their backs upon gay couples even if the issue was somehow legalized, just as they reserve the right to refuse to marry a couple that is intoxicated or has, say, too many piercings and shifty eyes. Last I checked, however, there are the select few *gasp* gay clergy members out there that would be more than willing to pick up the slack.
While I still abstain from endorsing anyone at this point, Franken was refreshingly direct and clear in his answers. Kudos.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
The more I think about it, the more annoyed I am by Ciresi’s answer. Not only is it a weird non-issue, the only people who think it is an issue are right-wingers. In other words, at a minimum, can’t we please ask our candidates to not parrot right-wing talking points? The only people who believe that civil marriage for gay people will threaten their marriages or religious institutions are rightwing nutjobs. They want to conjure up images of the state forcing the Catholics or Orthodox Jews or whoever to perform a gay marriage. But that wouldn’t happen because of, um, you know, the separation of church and state. No one forces rabbis to perform marriages for Catholics now, of course, because the state has no business telling religions what to do. No gay marriage or civil union law forces any religion to do anything. Period.
I wish a reporter or blogger would call up the Ciresi campaign and ask them to clarify what the hell he meant.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
My previous calls to Ciresi went unreturned - someone else will have to make that attempt.
To clarify: if you watch the video this was not rushed. Almanac debates are not time-moderated. They are casual conversations. Ciresi’s position on the issue was deliberate and pre-meditated.
This also isn’t an attack post. This is merely my own personal rating of their answers and my confusion at Ciresi’s response.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
If I may…I think I understood Cerisi’s statement. My life partner and I met Cerisi on Sunday, and I didn’t bring this topic up - rather other subjects I thought as important, if not more important.
I interpreted his comment to say: “I fully support gay marriage. However, I do not support, and fear, the idea that gay/lesbian couples would file discrimination suits against churches who won’t conduct a marriage ceremony for them.”
I have no problem with his response and I understand it. Cerisi is showing fairly savvy politics by saying to the conservative/moderately conservative religious community that he will protect their religious (homophobia) in exchange to allow GLBT folks to be married - legally - via a more liberal congregation or a Justice of the Peace.
IMO… BTW - nice to see your blog up and active! I hope you’re well!
FF
October 15th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
What Ciresi is saying, and I believe him and agree with him, is that the issue will be turned by the Republicans into “the Democrats are telling our ministers that they have to marry fags…next thing they’ll be insisting that we marry men and sheep!” Ciresi has demonstrated on every occasion possible that he is a strong supporter of gay rights (human rights) for all. He supports granting all citizens the same protections and right that others have.
Fruit Fly is right. The politics of this issue must be considered by all candidates when they craft their responses. Ciresi’s response shows a lawyers concern that rights be protected on both sides of the issue.
Don’t be critical of a candidate because they insist on analyzing the issues and responding based on all the potential effects of a new law…that is why we hire them.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 am
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Mike Ciresi adamant on imaginary same-sex marriage issue, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.