Notes on Katherine Kersten’s Stool Samples

Please tell me, why are Republicans condemn all of society to live in perpetual and eternal fear? If you drink, you’re going to Hell (unless you’re a Baptist minister and love gospel music). If you fornicate, you’re going to Hell (unless you’re a Republican and your wife looks stunning in a leopard print dress). If you’re gay, you’re definitely going to Hell (because God really hates the Queers for some reason…I don’t know). No matter what your crime against “The Holiest of Holy” might be, shouldn’t “fear mongering” be up there on that list too? At least as a minor crime like “white lies” and “cheating on your diet”?

In today’s Strib, Katherine Kersten writes a piece entitled: “California ruling hijacks middle ground on marriage” by which she laments all of the fear and loathing one could muster on the recent news out of the California State Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. (Be careful with that last link there; it’s a PDF and it’s a whopper of a file! It’s jammed packed with extra-fear, too! So be careful!)

Ms. Kersten opens her first paragraph with:

The debate over same-sex marriage has roiled for over a decade. On one side are people who believe that marriage is properly limited to one man and one woman. On the other are those who argue that lack of access to marriage is unfair to gay couples, because it deprives them of benefits that flow from the marriage certificate, such as survivor rights, hospital visitation and insurance coverage.

Did you see how she’s set the tone for her entire piece? If there’s anything Kersten loves more than Jesus and her Bible; it’s “Spin”, “Jargon” and “Fear”. You think it’s a coincidence that Noah had three sons? Strange, you might think, that King Nebuchadnezzar threw only “Three Young Men” into the Fiery Furnace? Odd that it’s “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Scary One”? Everything Ms. Kiersten writes falls under her own favorite categories she calls “Her Holy Trinity” of “Spin”, “Jargon”and “Fear”.


“Properly” is hetero, while the “homo” side of her argument a tone of disparaging, whining and complaining. It’s all code! But we’ll get to that a little later.

I’ve often wondered how the Star Tribune came to ask Ms. Kersten write for them? I would suspect, the Strib’s Editorial staff asked her to submit samples of her writing while considering her. And so I’ve concluded that, Ms. Kersten must have submitted a stool sample like this piece here for consideration. Since the Strib didn’t have anybody else on staff that used their own stool samples to communicate their views on the world, they decided to run with it and asked her “properly” for her two forms of ID as her proof of US Citizenship and her Social Security number. …And then probably gave her a small advance on her next check. But that’s only a guess.

A good friend of mine says that my blogging is sometimes “Obtuse“. Since I have no idea what that word means, I decided it probably had something to do with one of the missing colors in my box of Crayons. I suppose I should be happy that he didn’t say my writing was “ochre”, “puce” or “burnt sienna”. So if I’m being a little too “obtuse” with that stool sample analogy, I apologize in advance. Just be grateful I don’t get really upset with Ms. Kersten’s writing and go a little “goldenrod”.  Which I’ve been known to do from time and again…

Ms. Kersten continues, painfully I might add:

But last week, this middle ground disappeared — courtesy of the California Supreme Court. In ruling California’s marriage laws unconstitutional, the court made clear that, far from preserving traditional marriage, domestic partnerships are actually likely to hasten its demise.

She claims that her fellow conservative (Republicans) in California attempted to come “half-way” with their gay and lesbian residents by approving a one-man/one-woman definition of marriage in 2000 by an election of 61.5% of the vote. (Nice to see they’ve over-exerted themselves in having to go vote on such a decision in the first place, let alone dragging themselves to make such a huge “compromise” with their fellow citizenry.) Working up a strain producing this recent stool sample of hers, Ms. Kersten aptly points out that in 1999 California passed their own Domestic Partnership Act. Something she her self would pull her hair out and scream the horrors if such an act or any resemblance of such an act were to passed here in Minnesota. So don’t look for any “compromising positions” from Katherin Kersten any time soon.

Kersten claims that California reached that “middle ground” by giving gay and lesbian couples “some rights”, and they should have been happy with that.
Ms. Kersten immediately changes her tone by patronizing the state’s Supreme Court:

The court put no stock in the state’s argument that same-sex and opposite-sex couples already have equivalent rights under California law. In fact, the majority found that the Legislature’s decision to treat gay relationships as worthy of marriage-like benefits actually bolstered plaintiffs’ argument that domestic partnerships are discriminatory. Since the Legislature has treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, said the court, withholding the marriage label from gays is a “mark of second-class citizenship.”

Those dumb judges! If this were true, then why on earth and all things un-Holy, would the California Supreme Court even bother with this case?

Let’s watch Kersten’s stool sample turn into fear. Be on the lookout for her “Holy Three” – I’ll try to help you as you go along:

Minnesotans can draw two lessons from the California decision. First, it vindicates the approach taken by the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which the Minnesota House of Representatives passed in 2006 but the DFL-controlled Senate killed by keeping it bottled up in committee. The amendment would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Opponents sometimes slammed this dual prohibition as mean-spirited, but the California decision now reveals it to be far-sighted.

Second, the California decision vindicates Minnesotans who argue that a constitutional amendment is the only way to safeguard traditional marriage. During the 2006 debate, then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and OutFront Minnesota both maintained that the amendment was unnecessary, because our state already has a “defense of marriage” act and because the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected same-sex marriage in a 1971 case.

Her next paragraph is her “bombshell”. Her piece de resistance…

But when it tossed out California’s one-man/one-woman voter initiative — which the state’s Legislature cannot overturn on its own — the California majority showed how far arrogant, activist courts will go in disregarding the will of the people.

“Activist Courts”?! “Activist Courts?!” Why…Why…If I didn’t know better, I’d say that was more “code”!!! Ohh… I’m starting to get a little goldenrod right now!!

Let’s do a quick head count of those damned judges that are sitting on that “Activist Court”, shall we?  …Lessee…

Ronald M. George – appointed in 1991 by Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican

Marvin R. Baxter – appointed by Governor George Deukmejian, a Republican

Ming W. Chin – appointed by Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican
Carol A. Corrigan – appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican

Joyce L. Kennard – appointed by Governor George Deukmejian, a Republican

Carlos R. Moreno – appointed by Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat

and finally…
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar– who was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson, whom we already know… was a Republican.

Where, pray tell… does Katherin Kersten get off calling the California Supreme Court a bunch of activists?! The entire bench is filled with Republicans!!!

Katherine finishes her stool sample with this tidbit:

Anyone who has followed the abortion debate knows what happens when a court cuts out the middle ground, as the U.S. Supreme Court did on abortion 35 years ago in Roe vs. Wade. Toxic social division is inevitable when courts usurp the people’s rights.

Shall I help you out with her Holy Trinity in that paragraph, or are you good to go now? Hint, it’s the first three words in her last sentence. But I’m guessing you already knew that.

2 Responses

  1. First, when I read this article, I thought it was written in a very fair manner. If you have had any journalistic experience, you know that use of the word “slammed” is much better than alternatives. Also, I do think the MN Senate Democratic party has the majority, or am I mistaken? This is not a slam against the DFL; it is but pure fact. Don’t take certain words out of context. (Basic journalism 101.)
    Yes, Katherine Kersten has an opinion, but she does a fair job of presenting both sides and then making her case.
    And if I remember right, there isn’t any law against being opinionated.

    Second, before you go off spewing “Because God really hates the Queers for some reason..” you should try reading the Bible, just for the sake that when you read it, you would find this statement to be untrue. Yes, God hates the act of homosexuality, but this does not mean he hates the homosexuals. If you don’t understand, try calling a pastor at a local church; He might be able to brighten your intelligence.

    Basic Journalism 101 – step 2. Always check your facts, because when you don’t, you look like an unobservant, idiotic fool.

    I hope this helps you’re writing. I know it has helped mine, already; I see what I don’t want to become: You.

    PS. Not all republicans uphold the same moral standards that many others do. Throwing on a red or blue stripe to a name doesn’t do any good if you don’t know what they, themselves, stand for. Just like stereotypes, Democrats and Republicans all don’t hold the same point of view, which makes sense, given the banter and debates over certain issues within each party. Kersten was suggesting that those on the court didn’t uphold the same standards she does, even with the same color-code she has.

  2. hannah:

    You’re so full of baloney and I find it impossible for you to believe your own spewing rhetoric.

    Common Sense 1: Don’t patronize a person’s knowledge of the Bible, theology or church doctrine. Playing the card that says; “God hates homosexuality, but he doesn’t hate the homosexual” is nothing short of stupidity. And yes, I did call you stupid.

    Let me help you. In the case of Matthew Shepard; a college-aged man is lured into a truck of homophobic slobs who drive out in the wilderness of Wyoming. They beat the young mean in to a semi-conscious state, dragged him behind their truck down a graveled road a good 5 to 10 miles and left the man draped over a barbed-wire fence where eventually died.

    Now me?!? I’m here to tell you – in your own twisted logic: “God doesn’t hate the homophobes… He just hates the ‘muder’ they commited.”

    Nice, don’t you think?!? You see, in that light, you can proudly point out that God loves the Homophobes – he just hates the sin.

    That’s being sad and pathetic. And for you, that’s how I conclude your stupidity.

    Common Sense #2) God also hated daughters who were lost their virginity before marriage. In fact, God the Father demanded Dads who found out their daughter had sex before marriage required the girl be taken out and stoned to death!

    You Leap of Logic fails you miserably by trying to pigeon-hole Old Testament Levitical Law on a couple off-handed sentences and to apply to all of society in 2008. Hint: You better damned well be showing up in church this coming Sunday with a.) Your head covered and b.) You shut the hell up. You’re not allowed to speak up, be acknowledged in any way and you better damned well bring a male family member or husband with you to do the talking for you. That same Levitical Law you puked on my Blogsite makes some pretty ferocious requirements on women in the church and in society, all of which is far more damning than God’s hatred towards same sex relationships.

    Common Sense 3:) Yes, you do have a right to your opinion, as well as Katherine Kersten. As well as I do, too. Nice of you to write me off your list by defending Kersten’s. Unfortunately, you failed your own “Journalism Rules” by ignoring the glaring problem that I noted Kersten failed to think through.

    Kersten’s entire piece boils down to the argument that the California Supreme Court is nothing but a barrel full of “activist judges”. My piece mocks Kersten openly simply by pointing out that with the exception of one Supreme Court Justice, all of them have been appointed by Republicans!

    You missed all of that. But rather, pine away a patronizing tone that I, don’t understand journalism or that I’m too confused to allow others have an opinion. Thanks for that!

    …Meanwhile, I’ll continue on thinking that you’re an Idiot without a clue fluttering around aimlessly in an empty space between your ears.

    Thanks for stopping and reading my “very non-journalistic” blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: