“You know, in Europe, people are marrying animals!”

The people at the anti-gay, anti-marriage equality, bigoted Minnesota for Marriage, according to Carol A. Overland, who writes at Legalectric, say, “You know, in Europe, people are marrying animals!”

Overland delivers a riveting account of her day at the Minnesota State Fair, named, “Our State Fair is a Great State Fair” — which is also the name of the opening song in the Rodgers & Hammerstein musical and 1962 movie, “State Fair” — during which she and her husband (?) Alan spent a few minutes at the “Minnesota for Marriage” booth, because, “some people really got to me with their hateful and absurd agenda.”

Overland says “all this flap about ‘gay marriage’ is what I regard as a political distraction from the harm the right is doing with their mutant and malignant capitalism.”

Yes!

She continues.

As Alan asked, “Why do you care about this?” What is it that drives someone to sit at a little wooden booth in the sun all day to argue that someone who is gay should not be able to marry their partner? I passed the “Minnesota for Marriage” booth in disgust, noting there was a video camera on a tripod at the southern end of the booth. And Alan, fresh from a visit to the Republican building, wanted to have a chat. He’s such a quiet and calm questioner, and is able to elicit the most amazing statement from people in any venue. He did it again. He went up to the booth and began to ask a woman there some questions. The first, “Why do you care about this?” And instead of responding, she said “Do you mind if I ask you a couple questions?” and he said, demeanor well depicted above, ‘Well, actually, I do, I asked you a question, why do you care about this?”

Overland says the “Minnesota for Marriage” people told her she was not allowed to take photographs, “that I have to get permission and fill out a form.”

Then I ask whether their agenda includes outlawing D-I-V-O-R-C-E (!) and she gets pissed and hollers that I’m off point. EH? MOI? OFF POINT? I’m asking the question, and that’s my point.

The guy in the green comes over and gets very close into my space and in front of me and says “we’ve had about enough” and I’m just getting going, so I say, “OK, great, I’ll get your photo too” and got out the camera again, this time catching him with the camera and camera guy that was off to the left — what were they doing with that video camera:

So were they filming everyone who came up to the booth??? It was positioned to get the front of the booth… Hmmmmm… anyway, at this point I left to sit in the shade and catch up with Alan after he finished.

The punchline? The woman he was talking to had been scripted to ask questions, and to get you to a point where you agreed that there should be some limits on who could marry, and actually told him, “You know, in Europe, people are marrying animals!” He asked what country and what animals, and she didn’t know… uh-huh, right… so logically, we NEED this amendment in Minnesota so we won’t be marrying animals.

There’s more. Go take a look. I think this is my favorite story of the day.

One of the comments on the blog says, “Screw them and their hate. I know the majority of Minnesotans don’t side with them — it’s just a matter of getting them out to the polls in November 2012.”

Indeed.

Thank you, Carol Overland!

By the way, here are some of the hate Minnesota For Marriage is spreading:

Right now, attempts are being made in Minnesota’s courts and in the Legislature to redefine marriage or eliminate it altogether. If activist judges or politicians were to succeed in redefining marriage in Minnesota in the future, there would be profound consequences for religious organizations, individuals, and small businesses—and for society itself.

Contrary to what some people think, so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ would not exist in the law alongside traditional marriage, as if it were a different expression of the same marriage institution they have always known. Marriage will be redefined for everyone. Our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman would be replaced by a new legal definition of marriage as the union of two adults regardless of gender.

This new, redefined version of marriage as a genderless institution would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage in Minnesota. Such a radical change in the definition of marriage will produce a host of societal conflicts that government, exercising its broad enforcement powers, will have to resolve. Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs, traditions, morals or ethnic upbringing are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not act according to the new legal orthodoxy. .

Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation’s most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues, ranging from religious liberty, to individual expression of faith, to education and the professions.

For example, these legal scholars predict “a sea change in American law,” and foretell an “immense” volume of litigation against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations.

Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults – not children — will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs.

Wow. And we wonder why, after 1870, they bothered to call it “voting” anymore.

(Hat tip to Zack Ford of Think Progress!)