White Supremacy Protection Amendment?

Kalley Yanta, as spokesperson for the misnamed “Minnesota for Marriage” organization is at it again.

In the third ad released as part of their marriage amendment “Vote Yes” campaign, I hear her saying:

“When equal rights for Negroes have been imposed elsewhere, it’s not been “live and let live.” People who believe that Negroes are inferior to Whites have faced consequences.

Small businesses fined. Individuals fired. Charities closed down. Churches sued. Negro equality being taught to young children in elementary school; with parents having no legal right to be notified, or to take their children out of class.

We can prevent this from happening here by voting yes on the White Supremacy Protection Amendment.”

Don’t those words sound ugly? For most Americans (but sadly not all) living in this century, the words are ugly.

Just as the words were ugly back then, they’re especially ugly now. They show how little we’ve progressed in over 200 years as a supposedly free nation, with equal rights for all.

To be sure, Ms. Yanta didn’t use the above words exactly. I like to translate outrageous political ads to reveal their true message.

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination – Period.

It just seems so very appropriate to point out how the hateful messages being delivered by Ms. Yanta sound so very similar to the hateful words used by Deep South bigots to oppose equal rights for Blacks. Most Americans (but sadly not all) now know that such ideas are wrong.

On their web site, the misnamed “Minnesota for Marriage” organization posted a convenient “fact sheet” to go along with their third ad. I downloaded a copy for review.

The problem with the ad, and the related “fact sheet,” is that both slant unrelated “facts” to support their agenda. A “no” vote on the marriage amendment will not legalize same-sex marriage – state law already prohibits it. And, a yes vote will not prevent the “consequences” they show in their ad from occurring, as the cases cited were not related to same-sex marriage. Rather, the “consequences” noted came from businesses ignoring existing anti-discrimination laws; and, an employee being fired after violating his employment agreement with a private employer.

In the case of the Catholic Church, they did shut down a couple of their adoption service businesses rather than agreeing to comply with existing laws. Same-sex marriage was not the issue. As was their right, the Church decided to quit that business, rather than to remain in it and obey existing laws.

In short, the ads we’ve seen so far from the misnamed, “Minnesota for Marriage” have been just as false and misleading as any of the ads we’ve seen during this political cycle. But then, I would expect that, as the politicians who voted to place this anti-equality amendment on the ballot did so not out of a love for Minnesota, or a love for our nation’s Constitution, but rather in an attempt to secure votes for themselves and their supposedly  “God fearing” political party, by going after a minority group. It’s just wrong on so many levels.  

If it were up to me, all Minnesotans who value the freedom and equality promised by our nation’s Constitution would vote against those politicians who would condone enshrining illegal discrimination in our state’s laws and Constitution, while also voting against the discriminatory amendment they promoted.

There should be consequences for those who attempt to take equal rights away from anyone to satisfy their own political agenda.

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination – Period.

Illegal Discrimination is Illegal Discrimination – Period

The misnamed organization, “Minnesota for Marriage,” has been saturating the airwaves with a commercial featuring former TV news anchor Kalley King Yanta asking the question, “Who should decide the definition of marriage.” She goes on to state that they think the people should decide. She urges us to vote “Yes” on the proposed amendment seeking to add discrimination to Minnesota’s Constitution, so that “voters always have the final say.”

The commercial is wrong on so many levels, it’s pathetic.

The United States Constitution has the final say. And, despite the efforts of modern-day Republicans to weaken it, the U.S. Constitution still guarantees freedom and equality for all; not just the wealthy, not just those in the majority, and not just certain religious groups. Freedom and equality for all. Our Constitution exists to protect the rights of everyone.

I always find it annoying when extremist groups adopt a name which attempts to hide their true purpose. Perhaps it’s because a name like “Minnesota for Illegal Discrimination,” while more accurate, just doesn’t sound nice.

It isn’t nice.

A few weeks ago, the group presented a photo-op featuring a variety of religious leaders standing on the steps of the state Capitol encouraging a “Yes” vote on the proposed Constitutional amendment. This was expected. Throughout our nation’s history, many of our most irrational, discriminatory, laws have been promoted by religious leaders.

As recently as the 1960’s there were white churches in the Deep South still preaching that segregation of the races was okay. They had also preached that there was a Biblical basis for slavery, so slavery was okay.

This brings me to Rev. Jerry McAfee, of the New Salem Missionary Baptist Church of Minneapolis. At the Capitol photo-op, he appeared with the rest of the religious leaders urging a “Yes” vote. But, he took it a step further. He stated that it was “an insult” to compare discrimination against same-sex marriage to racial discrimination. He’s quoted as saying “While they certainly have their own rights, to equate it on the same level as a civil rights struggle that my people have gone through? It’s an insult to me." (Added emphasis is mine.)

I nearly went ballistic when I heard this particularly ignorant comment. Here was a black man who is regarded as a “Civil Rights advocate” not only speaking FOR illegal discrimination, but also stating that he was “insulted” that a minority group, with their “own rights” would be demanding rights equal to those of “his people.” Similar words were once heard coming from Southern whites as they sought to maintain illegal segregation, “They are entitled to their own rights. We have given them their own schools. They have their own drinking fountain, and their own bathrooms out back. They have their own seats at the back of the bus. I’m insulted that now they want use the same schools, the same water fountains, the same bathrooms, and the very bus seats reserved for my people.”

Until the U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967, it was still illegal for couples of different races to marry in 17 states. Those states had defined marriage to be only between same-race couples. Among the arguments used by those states to show that their laws were not discriminatory was similar to one heard today -  Blacks could marry anyone they want to, as long as it was another Black (today’s version: Our laws are not discriminatory, same-sex couples can marry anyone they want, as long as they’re a member of the opposite sex).

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination - Period.