« DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND POST ENCOURAGES “ENVIROS” TO VOTE FOR NELSON-PALLMEYER | Home | NARN “THE FINAL WORD” PODCAST FEBRUARY 2, 2008: PRECINCT CAUCUSES, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DISCUSSION »
MINNESOTA MONITOR “FRANKEN’S GAY HUMOR RESURFACES AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 4, 2008
"Minnesota politicos are asking themselves: When is a joke not a joke?
Republicans hope that by disseminating jokes made by Al Franken, the comedian turned Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, they can undermine his campaign to unseat Republican Norm Coleman. Michael Brodkorb, a Republican operative and sole writer of the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed, has been delving into Franken's past to find instances where Franken has made light of the struggles of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The few instances he has found have been heavily promoted — even included in a video for Coleman's campaign.
The jokes have also put off a few GLBT members of the DFL.
At a recent forum held for the GLBT community by attorney Mike Ciresi, one of Franken's opponents for the DFL nomination, it was clear that some found Franken's humor objectionable. Former DFL state Sen. Allan Spear, who made headlines in the early 1970s as one of the nation's first openly gay elected officials, introduced Ciresi. Spear said that unlike comedian Franken, Ciresi takes GLBT issues seriously. Spear cited the attacks on Franken by Republicans using Franken's past jokes against him as a real problem — and a reason for the community to support Ciresi and defeat Franken for the chance to replace Coleman." Source: Minnesota Monitor, February 4, 2008
Click here for the complete post.
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Topics: 2008 U.S. Senate, Al Franken, Mike Ciresi, Norm Coleman | 37 Comments »
37 Responses to “MINNESOTA MONITOR “FRANKEN’S GAY HUMOR RESURFACES AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit could exceed $400 billion.
Rep. Tim Walz: “The new leadership in Congress has gone a long way to restore some fiscal sanity to Washington,…”
Thanks Tim, I think Britney has more sanity.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I’m glad that Andy Birkey finally did this story.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
This was my favorite part:
“The stances of the three DFLers differ considerably from those of Coleman. The Republican broke with the party line to vote for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which was strongly supported by the Democratic candidates and GLBT groups. But Coleman supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which seeks to block gays from marrying. As mayor of St. Paul in the 1990s, Coleman refused to acknowledge Twin Cities Pride, the most important GLBT community event each year. Franken happily marched in the parade that Coleman refused to recognize.
That a Republican operative and the Republican Party of Minnesota are circulating these jokes — as well as demanding GLBT community members respond to them — is disingenuous. The Republican Party of Minnesota has an abysmal record when it comes to GLBT equality, and the statements made and policies pushed by the party damage the community. The hypocrisy makes it that much harder to have a discussion of the jokes themselves — and adds nothing to the debate over the policy issues at stake in the election.”
February 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Andy, I have a question for you. Paul Wellstone didn’t support gay marriage either. Did you likewise bash Wellstone? Or are you just being disingenous bashing Coleman because he isn’t in the political party that you prefer?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“The Republican Party of Minnesota has an abysmal record when it comes to GLBT equality,”
The DFL’s record is no better, but you at least get lip service from them (no pun intended).
“which seeks to block gays from marrying. ”
With the DFL in control of the house and senate, where is the legislation allowing gay marriage? Why do DFL politicians hide from ever having to vote up or down on gay marriage?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The GOP on a consistant basis has refused to ratify state employee contracts with domestic partner benefits. The DFL supported those contracts.
Not to mention the torch and pitchfork crowd the GOP brought to the Capitol to bash gay people with signs like “Death to Homosexuals”. Do you really wonder why most people in the GLBT community don’t support you?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I wonder why the GLBT community supports the DFL.
“The DFL supported those contracts.”
and then dumped that support at their earliest convenience.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
No, the Governor refused to ratify them, that’s why they were changed. Without the Governor ratifying the contracts they are invalid. So ask your buddy Timmy, what he has against the GLBT community.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Honeydog: I was not a resident of Minnesota nor a blogger when Sen. Paul Wellstone was in office.
Master of None: Gay marriage isn’t the only issue GLBT people care about. In fact, more care about employment non-discrimination which the DFL was instrumental in getting passed in 1993. Protection from bias crimes, a national non-discrimination act, more HIV/AIDS funding and securing partner benefits outside a gay marriage came before gay marriage in a recent CUNY nationwide poll of GLBT voters.
Gay marriage has been an issue for social conservatives and Republicans much more than it has been for GLBT folks. They’ve framed the issue, not gays and not the DFL.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Andy do you then support a state wide vote on gay marraige? It has been the DFL that has kept that from happening. The laws you speak of in 1993 were not “DFL” laws.
Those were passed by both parties.
There have been many DFL politicians who have come out against gay marraige. You are also VERY WRONG about the GLBT community pushing for the gay marraige issues. All over the country many are pushing for that very cause even though they have been offered unions with the exact same benefits. Most employers now offer benefits to civil union partners.
Things have come a long way for that group and judging by your post you are still one of the angry few and want to turn GLBT issues into a democRat or Republican thing when in fact it is hardly ever going to be so easy to identify.
Just by your very qick excuse about Wellstone tells me all I need to know, which is you have no clue of which you speak.
How you feel about Franken then dipshit? Actions speak louder than words. While Norm does state he is against gay marraige, he is not against unions that offer same benefits.
Franken has made gay bashing an art form. Apparently you are too young to recall this but the same GLBT community you seem to think you know so weel was rather upset at that time with his hatred humor.
He may get public support from some groups in town, but I know the rumblings of many and when it comes time to pull the lever, they will not pull for Franken after all he has done.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Digby,
“the Governor refused to ratify them, that’s why they were changed.”
Bullshit.
# Sen. Scott Dibble and Rep. Karen Clark (both DFL) proposed that domestic partner benefits for state employees be reinstated. This amendment failed in both the House and the Senate.
# Sen. Dibble and Rep. Keith Ellison (both DFL) proposed an amendment that would allow state employees’ domestic partners to purchase health insurance at their own expense, but at the lower rates offered by the state employees’ purchasing pool. This amendment failed in both the House and the Senate.
Both the House and the Senate are DFL controlled
February 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Bullshit yourself, Governor Pawlenty stated in public he would not support the contracts with domestic partner benefits in them. The legislature could pass the contracts 100 times, but if the Governor does not ratify it, it is not valid.
So your choice is to not change the contracts and have state workers not getting paid (which I am sure the Governor would not mind since his buddies would still get a check). Or to change them and wait until we can elect a Governor who values the contributions of all state employees.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
So Digby is it your concern than that the government will not give you free cheese then?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The DFL House and Senate gave up on the GLBT communities and dumped the amendment. They passed a tax bill that they new would get vetoed, but the issue was important for them so they presented to the Governor anyway. They could have forced domestic partner benefits issue with the Governor in the same manner but didn’t. Why? Cause they don’t really give a damn.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
# Master of None Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I wonder why the GLBT community supports the DFL.
“The DFL supported those contracts.â€
and then dumped that support at their earliest convenience.
# Digby Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
No, the Governor refused to ratify them, that’s why they were changed. Without the Governor ratifying the contracts they are invalid. So ask your buddy Timmy, what he has against the GLBT community.
EY: The Democrats in the house and senate dumped those contracts as soon as Pawlenty threatened to do anything with them. They could have held their ground. The Democrats under Matt Entenza took no position (rather than opposing) the Bachmann amendment. That amendment could have been stopped in the house if Matt Entenza had shown some leadership. The year he did that, he got booed at the gay rally.
I’ve always bashed Paul Wellstone on his support of DOMA (used to call him “Paul DOMA Wellstone”, though I quit doing so after he died in the plane crash.
Norm Coleman does have a history of exploiting anti-gay animus for his political gain – he did that by pointlessly picking fights with the gay community by not signing gay pride proclamations in St Paul (a practice that was quickly discontinued by his successor and heir apparent Randy Kelly).
February 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
“While Norm does state he is against gay marraige, he is not against unions that offer same benefits.”
EY: I have not heard this. Where is Norm on the public record on this point. He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment which banned civil unions as well as gay marriage.
I’ve contacted the Coleman campaign press contact to get clarity:
Hi David:
You are listed on Coleman’s website as his media contact. I’m Eva
Young from Lloydletta’s Nooz. http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
A commenter left an interesting comment on MDE’s blog:
“While Norm does state he is against gay marraige, he is not against unions that offer same benefits.”
Does this accurately represent Coleman’s position. The Federal Marriage Amendment (which he voted for) would have banned civil unions.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“Honeydog: I was not a resident of Minnesota nor a blogger when Sen. Paul Wellstone was in office.”
And this prevents you on commenting on it how?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Would you say that Franken’s anti-Gay comments are “biting him in the ass?”
February 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
““which seeks to block gays from marrying.”
That’s a stupid sentence, and factually wrong.
The Defense of Marriage cannot block gays from marrying. Gays already are blocked from marrying. The new law can’t block what already is blocked.
The Defense of Marriage Act formally defines “marriage” as a union between a man and woman, and makes it more difficult for “activists” to abuse the courts to write laws that can never pass in the legislature or the ballot box.
Frankly, and I’ve said this before, the government has no business in the marriage business. It’s a religious rite, not a civil right.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“In fact, more care about … … more HIV/AIDS funding … ”
Comment: Buy yourself a $7 box of condoms, and quit screwing multiple partners. Then you won’t need more AIDS/HIV funding. AIDS/HIV is preventable… there you go, there’s your cure.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“Gay marriage has been an issue for social conservatives and Republicans much more than it has been for GLBT folks. They’ve framed the issue, not gays and not the DFL.”
… and gee, why do you think it became an issue… could it be because gays were jamming their gay marriage agenda down our throats via the courts? … no pun intended.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
“Frankly, and I’ve said this before, the government has no business in the marriage business. It’s a religious rite, not a civil right.”
I agreed with what you said up to this sentence. The government already is in the marriage business. It’s called having to get a marriage license. The minute the government requires a license, they are already involved. Not to mention, not all people get married by their respective clergy, some of us got married by a judge.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:47 am
… that’s kind of my point Honeydog. Why should anyone need a government license to participate in a religious rite? Why is the government conducting religious rites such as marriage?
Time for government to get out of religious affairs.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
“Why is the government conducting religious rites such as marriage?”
Because gov’t can get a pastor/priest/whatever to do the gov’t’s work, without havin’ to pay ‘em.
And some Churches are refusin’ to perform the gov’t portion of a marriage.
Seems like a lot of folks believe, as you say, that it’s time for government to get out of religious affairs.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
But Chestnut, not all people are religious. Not to mention, even the cultures that had beliefs that you don’t recognize as having a religion had marriage.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Since marriage is a religious rite, I don’t suspect non-religious people would get married. Why would a non-religeous person participate in a religious ceremony? I respect your personal experience here. Are you really turning to the bonds of government to sanctify your relationship with your husband? I look to the government to legitimize no personal relationship. That’s not a legitimate role of government.
All cultures I know of have religions that include the rite of marriage, or an equivalent. Ridding government from the marriage business won’t stop those people from practicing their religious and cultural heritage.
Government has no role what so ever in marriage.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
… and I mean no disrespect, Honeydog. I admire most all of your posts here…
February 7th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Chestnut, perhaps because it’s not really a religious ceremony. As you said, all cultures have marriage, but not all of those cultures consider the ceremony religious in nature. My hubby and I are definately not religious. We got married however, and not in a church or any other type of religious establishment.
And no, I’m not turning to the government to sanctify anything. I was merely pointing something out.
By the way, you are aware that not all cultures viewed gays or gay marriage as a bad thing. If you want the government completely out of the marriage business, including no licensing. will you accept the gay marriage performed by those religions that condone it?
February 7th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Honeydog, there is no basis for marriage outside of a religious context. Government involvement is government intrusion in the institution… nothing more.
And yes, I am aware that not all cultures through their religious believes view gay marriage as a bad thing. And yes, for those who follow those religions and share those cultural beliefs, I accept that.
My opinion is not based on rejecting gay marriage. It is based on the fact that government has no power to legitimize personal relationships in any shape or form.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am
“will you accept the gay marriage performed by those religions that condone it?
Hey, the marriage is only recognized by those in that religion. Others only have to recognize it if the clergy signs an official, government issued “license.”
There’s two issues, here: the religions rite, and the conferring of legal status by Ceasar.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:13 am
“My opinion is not based on rejecting gay marriage. It is based on the fact that government has no power to legitimize personal relationships in any shape or form.
The government DOES have the power to confer and/or deny legal status on/to people; to define what that status is and how it affects rights to property, etc etc etc.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:51 am
2PT… so you align with the liberal dogma that people are property.
O.k.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“Hey, the marriage is only recognized by those in that religion.”
WOW, spoken like a true devotee to Fred Phelps.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
2PT is dumb as they get Honeydog. Apparently he doesn’t know that Christianity recognizes all marriages from other faiths… well, the Catholics do anyway.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
From the remarks made re marriage and the government, I have to wonder how old you people are? Of course there have to be laws to protect the rights of spouses and CHILDREN in marriages. And who is going to carry out those laws – your pastor? Or your neighbor? How about if you want to divorce your spouse? Who divides the property fairly? Your in-laws? Who decides who gets custody of the children if the father or mother abuses them? We the people make our laws and enforce them through the government we elect to protect our rights. That’s why we have to be so careful who we elect, so that the gov. doesn’t become too powerful. God bless America.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I forgot – even if you are married in a church, like I did, you still need to get a marriage license first to make the marriage legal. Of course, the government does not “sanctify a marriage.” The best way to sanctify a marriage is to love, respect and treat each other well, and not be selfish, which is the cause of too many divorces today. I have to say my husband of 44 years treats me great, which makes me love him a lot and want to treat him like he treats me.
Love to all of you,
Grandma