At 09:08 PM 12/20/2004, Barbara Lickness wrote:
I don't mean to split hairs here but isn't it possible to support civil unions and support marriage in the biblical sense at the same time?
When I read the quotes made by NJL linked by Eva, I believe it said she supports civil unions. Civil unions are different from marriage in the biblical sense I think. So isn't it possible she was answering honestly in both quotes?
I may be wrong here. Am willing to be educated if I am.
As I said, I called Natalie in the effort to get some answers about this.
My question is this: Does Natalie Johnson Lee think that the bible should be used as the basis for civil marriage laws? I asked her this - and she did not give me an answer.
She did not tell me she supported Civil Unions. She also didn't say that the article by Battle was inaccurate.
Also - what she told me is different that what the 5th District Green Party Chair posted. Recall that Darrell Gerber said this yesterday:
"Natalie Johnson Lee has indicated to Green Party members that the claims made by Bob Battle are not true. She has explicitly stated that she does not support Bachman's proposal to amend the constitution."
She denied that any Green Party people raised the issue of this article with her - and she also said that the only time Greens contact her is to talk about GLBT issues.
CM Johnson Lee has the opportunity to put all this to rest by posting a press release on her Council Website stating clearly where she stands on this issue.
If Natalie Johnson Lee does support "biblical marriage", I'm wondering if she is referring to Deuteronomy Chapter 22 - which describes how if a man doesn't like his wife, and can prove she was not a virgin at the time of marriage, that the wife gets stoned to death.
As I said, I'd encourage people to call Johnson Lee at 673-2205 - to clarify matters. I tried to get a clear answer today - but did not. Johnson Lee did tell me she would read the Pioneer Press column and get back to me. I emailed her the full text of the article, so she could review it. I will let the list know if I get any answers.
Darrell Gerber also says:
My guess is that this is an attempt to show to a relatively uninformed audience that there is widespread support for Bachmann's proposal in the African-American community. As we all know, the truth is often a victim in political struggles. It does not matter, in this case, whether or not there is support by a Minneapolis Councilperson because they will not be voting on it. It also, apparently, does not matter to those advocating legalizing another form of hatred whether or not their claim is true....only the impression counts.
EY: I thought Natalie had voted with the Council majority in favor of putting the Council on record opposing the Bachmann amendment. That's why I was surprised to read this - my question was, what got NJL to change her position?
Gerber: Battle does have an out in that he only says that Natalie supports biblical marriage. It does not explicitly claim support for Bachmann's proposal nor does it even explicitly state the negative argument that she does NOT support other forms of marriage. The statements may be factually correct but the intended inferences left to the reader are not. This is a pretty underhanded ploy by Battle.
EY: That could be, but NJL didn't tell me that she had issues with Battle over this.
I'd be interested in hearing if the other people mentioned by Battle, Spike Moss and Rev. John Thomas, have the position on the Bachmann proposal Battler attributes to them.
EY: Spike Moss and the Rev John Thomas are not elected officials. Notably Natalie Johnson Lee was the ONLY elected official that he mentioned in the article (other than Michele Bachmann).
Eva
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
