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.