Opinion piece published by the Star Tribune in response to the story on Frank Schubert they ran on August 5. Amy Berquist talks about Schubert’s strategy of running emotional ads immediately prior to the election:

Frank Schubert, the “crusader” orchestrating the campaign to amend Minnesota’s Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, makes his living hoodwinking voters and making a mockery of basic rules for civil discourse. The foundation of his self-described “strategy” is to run emotional ads at the eleventh hour of an election campaign.

She goes on to talk about how we cannot allow this man to have the last word in the conversation, nor should this late-in-the-game activity even be permitted:

Rules for argumentation and decisionmaking in many venues account for the importance of providing opportunity for responses. When I joined the debate team in high school, I learned one of the most important rules: Judges disregard arguments raised only late in the debate.

Later, as a civics teacher and debate coach, my students and I discussed the reasons for this rule. If you want to have a fair discussion, you have to give your opponent a chance to respond. And if you are confident in your arguments, make them early and be eager to hear and defend against the other side’s attacks.

While there is nothing illegal about Schubert’s strategy, this behavior highlights the type of people that are running the campaign for amendment support. Schubert could care less about having a conversation and encouraging Minnesotans to consider both sides of the issue. He will do whatever it takes to make sure this mean-spirited amendment passes, and so far, his strategies have proven extremely successful.